Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMONS REGISTRATION (EAST SUSSEX) BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time.

FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNIONS (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Anglo-Irish Conference

Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what considerations led to the decision to publish the agendas of meetings of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference but not the result of exchanges.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): The intergovernmental conference follows normal practice in these matters. The substance of discussions between Governments is confidential, no agenda being published, but after meetings a joint statement is issued.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Secretary of State would agree that the communiqué which is issued amounts to an agenda to be discussed at the meetings? The people of Northern Ireland are concerned whenever they see, over a period, the vast range of subjects that are discussed, which, in the eyes of many folk, amount to a joint authority. A full minute would allay the fears and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, so why should it not be published?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that the existing practice is the right one. There is a joint statement as to the character of matters that have been discussed and I think that that is the right way to go about it. I believe that the practice is sustained by experience as being wise.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in welcoming the warm tributes paid by the Dublin Government in memory of the men who died in the tragic helicopter disaster in Scotland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly, I accept her invitation to express my warm appreciation of the message that was received from Mr. Spring and, I think, from leaders of all the political parties

represented in the House. It was a tragic accident, but its operational effects are being remedied by all four services involved and the work of those fine people is continuing, as they would wish.

Mr. Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the functions of the intergovernmental conference is to protect the human rights and civil rights of everyone on the island of Ireland. Is he aware of the thuggish behaviour of many firms in the north of Ireland, including the recently taken over Ulster Farmers Bacon Factory and the recently privatised Northern Ireland Electricity Retail Co. which are offering their employees employment only on the condition that they accept a drop in salary of about £5,000, with no severance pay and redundancy provisions? Can he ensure that, in future meetings of the intergovernmental conference, that element of human rights and civil rights is protected by both Governments?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is an ingenious vehicle by which to bring that concern to Question Time. I do not think that it is a matter of human rights; it is a matter—although I am not aware of the individual circumstances—of businesses striving to keep people in employment, but having to have regard to market circumstances in deciding whether they can pay people to remain in employment.

Broadcasting

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans to meet representatives of BBC Northern Ireland, Ulster Television, Downtown Radio and other commercial radio stations to discuss broadcasting in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): I have no plans at present for such a meeting.

Mr. Fabricant: I am rather disappointed about that. Is my right hon. Friend aware how difficult it is for journalists to maintain impartiality, often in difficult and tragic situations? Does he agree that the current position in Northern Ireland is both difficult and tragic? May I ask him to see representatives of the BBC and others, such as Downtown Radio and Ulster Television, and to congratulate them on the impartial and unbiased coverage that they have given in Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: I know that my hon. Friend takes an informed interest in the work of the BBC. Of course, all journalistic reporting from whatever source—when it is fair, accurate and objective—contributes greatly to the community and to the security situation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends meet members of the journalistic community in Northern Ireland almost on a daily basis, when often we find a microphone underneath our faces from people seeking comment. We have a very good and warm relationship with them.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant)? There is a need for consultation, especially as it is thought that cable television will soon be introduced in Northern Ireland. It is important for the Minister to impress on any organisation that wishes to introduce cable television that it should consult local authorities and local


people fully. Will he think about approaching the BBC about being more generous and being equal with concessionary television licences throughout Northern Ireland?

Sir John Wheeler: Some of the hon. Gentleman's points properly fall within the jurisdiction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. In so far as my colleagues in Northern Ireland or I have any responsibility, we are always available to meet representatives of the media industry to discuss any of their concerns that fall within our jurisdiction.

Anglo-Irish Talks

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards securing a resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland and on discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning a constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the current political situation in Northern Ireland; and what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the political parties in Northern Ireland concerning a constitutional settlement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Bilateral discussions are continuing with three of the main Northern Ireland parties. The Government are also consulting closely with the Irish Government on the preparation of a framework document, which would facilitate a comprehensive political settlement. Our aim remains to return to multilateral talks at the earliest appropriate time.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that there can be no purely internal settlement of the Northern Ireland question and, therefore, that there is a need for a formal, institutionalised Irish convention?

Mr. Ancram: The Government's position has been clear for some time. Any settlement must address the three relationships—relationships within Northern Ireland, those between the north and the south of Ireland and those between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government here. The formula of 26 March 1991, under which talks are currently conducted, made that clear and that remains the Government's clear position.

Mrs. Prentice: Can the Minister give us any idea when the joint framework document will be presented to the Northern Ireland parties? When does he think that the document will be published?

Mr. Ancram: As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, work is going on between the two Governments on the framework document, which is intended to set out a shared understanding of the elements of a settlement within strands 2 and 3 that have the best prospects of achieving widespread acceptance and support. It is also likely to include constitutional issues. At this stage, it is not possible for me to say when that process will be completed. Some time after it is completed, we shall wish to discuss the understandings with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to press the Minister a little further on the same subject. I wonder whether he has seen The Irish Times this morning, which contains a quotation from Mr. Dermot Ahern, co-chairman of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body. He says that the Taoiseach hopes to finalise the document before he meets the Prime Minister in mid-July. Presuming that Mr. Reynolds finalises the document and it is rubber-stamped by the Government, is it to be issued to the public, so that the people of Northern Ireland may see it, or is it to be given to the constitutional parties or all the political parties in Northern Ireland? Who exactly will receive it?

Mr. Ancram: First, I should like totally to knock on the head the idea that the British Government are going to rubber-stamp anything. The process that is taking place between the Irish and British Governments is to see where we can find a shared understanding on the elements of a settlement that is likely to receive widespread acceptance by the people of Northern Ireland. That process is carried out intensively at this moment and it is not possible to set a time scale for it, but in due course we hope that it will form part of the process of dialogue that will, in the end, lead to a settlement in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend discusses constitutional change with the parties in Northern Ireland, will he bear in mind the interests of the Unionist party —particularly in Scotland—on constitutional change? As a former Scottish Office Minister, my hon. Friend will realise what I mean when I say that the interesting election results in Scotland have recently given us cause to have concern about the Union.

Mr. Ancram: I always watch with nostalgia political developments north of the border, but my responsibilities at this time are for political developments within Northern Ireland. There are great dangers in trying to draw analogies between the situation in Northern Ireland and that which exists in Scotland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Having confirmed that talks with some political parties have been on-going since last September, can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government's position that the constitutional settlement is within the constitution of the United Kingdom, despite the comments of Mr. Reynolds, who may now be having some midsummer madness after his recent Christmas mislongings?

Mr. Ancram: I can make clear to the hon. Gentleman what has been clear all along: there can be no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I can go further and say that there can be no settlement under the present dialogue which does not achieve the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland. There is no question of coercion or imposition, and that is recognised as much by the Government in Dublin as it is by us.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government of the Republic do not exercise any kind of veto over the progress of the inter-party talks?

Mr. Ancram: We have made it clear that no one exercises a veto and the important talks will proceed on the basis that no single participant can prevent the talks progressing by simply refusing to come to the table. It is


absolutely clear that if we are to achieve agreement, it must be on the basis of widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland.

Downing Street Declaration

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what response he has received from Sinn Fein-IRA following their request for clarification of the Downing Street declaration.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: None. The people of Northern Ireland demand that they desist, permanently, from violence within our democracy; yet, to the revulsion of the people, they continue to murder people and to condone and justify such murder.

Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that the biggest single factor now impeding the peace process in Northern Ireland is the massive amount of money which is made by racketeers and godfathers working within paramilitary organisations? If Gerry Adams and the political leaders of Sinn Fein wanted to deliver a peace deal, there would remain a major task in rooting out those who have a clear and vested interest in continuing the violence in Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we must renew and redouble our energies and efforts in stopping those mafia-style activities?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree that there is a great deal of racketeering to be found on both sides of the paramilitary spectrum. I do not agree that it is the biggest obstacle to the establishment of peace. The biggest obstacle is the refusal of those who resort to violence for political purposes to give it up in this democracy. We take the greatest pains to counter paramilitary racketeering, but I do not agree that our efforts need to be redoubled. We are at the moment doing all that we consider practicable, and we keep that very much under review.

Mr. Bellingham: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, after the clarification which has taken place, there will be no further dealings at all with Sinn Fein and the IRA? Surely they now have a chance and an opportunity, and surely now the process must go on without them.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The process will certainly go on, with or without them. It will only go on with them if they make it plain that they have renounced violence permanently and that they are committed to democratic politics. There is no question of any dealings with Sinn Fein until that has been delivered—none at all. There has been widespread approval all around the world for the comments that the British Government made on the questions which were submitted by Sinn Fein a mere four and a half months from the signing of the declaration. It is now for it to answer a question—when will it give up violence?

Mr. Hume: I express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for the written clarification which he gave in keeping with his wish to leave no stone unturned and to bring a total end to violence in our streets. May I repeat my view that the recent democratic expression of the people was a strong expression of support for the peace process, which is about a total cessation of violence followed by an

agreement among our divided people which threatens no section of our people? May I repeat my request and hope that the response of Sinn Fein and the IRA will respect the self-determination of the people of Ireland, north and south, on the methods used?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said at both the beginning and the end of his question. The interpretation of election results in Northern Ireland is a specialist activity. It seems reasonable to remark that, in the recent election—to the extent that electors might have had the joint declaration in mind when electing people to the European Parliament—a margin of 20 per cent. more people voted for candidates supportive of, or acquiescent in, the joint declaration than for candidates opposed to it.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcomed the replies that he gave to Sinn Fein's questions? We particularly welcomed his recognition of its electoral mandate and the fact that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 should be on the table, that no party should have a veto over discussions and that the only condition for going to the conference table is a demonstrable total denunciation of violence. In view of the strong mandate given in the European election to those parties seeking peace in Northern Ireland, particularly that given to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), does the Secretary of State accept that there is every reason for Sinn Fein to heed the voice of the people of Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland, renounce violence and take its place at the negotiating table?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree that Sinn Fein should heed the voice of the people. In the south it got 3 per cent. of the vote, while in the north it got under 10 per cent. There is no excuse in this democracy for proceeding to use violence for any political purpose whatever. That message is well understood by the people of Northern Ireland, who demand that violence must end. For Sinn Fein to continue to use violence, claiming to act in some way in the name of the people of Ireland, is not only fanciful but fraudulent.

Security

Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the current security situation in the Province.

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of terrorist activity since 15 December 1993.

Sir John Wheeler: Thirty-four people have been murdered this year as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland, including five members of the security forces. In the period between 15 December and the end of last year, one soldier was murdered. Many attacks have been foiled


by the courage and expertise of the security forces. There will be no relaxation in the determination of the authorities to bring those responsible for terrorist crime to justice.

Mr. Molyneaux: Now that national and international opinion is at long last aligned with democracy and not with Irish terrorism, will the Minister reflect on the views of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who, when Home Secretary, said:
There is no point in negotiating with the IRA. They just have to be extirpated"?

Sir John Wheeler: There is no negotiation with the Provisional IRA. The joint declaration sets out a mechanism for those who wish to follow the path of peace. I hope that they will follow it.

Mr. Spring: The western part of Suffolk may be a long way from Northern Ireland, but may I relay to my right hon. Friend the expressions of shock and sympathy addressed to me by many of my constituents following the tragic helicopter crash? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, despite that tragic setback, the fight against terrorism, from whatever quarter, will continue unabated?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who seeks to take an informed interest in the security problems of Northern Ireland. The tragedy of losing 29 experienced and valuable people who have contributed so much to saving life is a great disaster and the House will think particularly of their families at this time. I assure the House that, notwithstanding the extent of that disaster, every effort to continue the fight against terrorism will continue. Even now, the replacements are going into office to take up and continue the work of those whose lives have been so tragically lost.

Mr. Taylor: In Belfast last week, the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church was held. That is the largest Protestant Church in Northern Ireland. Views were expressed by many laymen and clergy about the security situation on the ground. As the Minister will have taken them into account, how does he now respond to them?

Sir John Wheeler: I am naturally concerned about all comment in Northern Ireland, but the House should know of the real and considerable successes that the security forces are having. So far this year, until 15 June, 220 people have been charged with serious terrorist offences, as against 172 in the same period last year, including 49 with murder or attempted murder, as against 38 in the same period last year. What matters is that people who commit those awful and evil crimes are caught, arrested and charged before the courts.

Mr. Soley: The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to Irish terrorism in his question. Is not this an appropriate time to remind ourselves that, for the past two years, Unionist terrorism has been claiming more lives than republican terrorism, and not for the first time in Northern Ireland's sad history? Is not it therefore all the more important that we now say to both the Unionist and the republican community in the north, which is where the violence originates, that there is no excuse for terrorism? There never has been any excuse, but there is no excuse in view of the bold and, if I may say so, visionary decision of the two Governments to go for the Downing Street declaration. It has given both sides democratic

safeguards and democratic opportunities, if they follow that agenda, and the British and Irish people expect no less from both communities.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and agree whole-heartedly with his view. Terrorism from whatever source is unacceptable. There is no excuse of any kind. So far this year, 136 so-called loyalists and 83 republicans have been charged for terrorist-related offences.

Sir James Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that there is growing alarm at the increase in criminality and hooliganism in the North Down area? The people of North Down are entitled to the same security as any other part of Northern Ireland. With regard to hooliganism, there are gangs of youths who travel around and harass, and in some cases terrorise, vulnerable old-age pensioners. Surely it is time to increase the number of police in the North Down area, the number of police vehicles and the number of police stations?

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that I take a special interest in the progress of the fight against ordinary crime in Northern Ireland and especially in his constituency, which I had the pleasure of visiting a short while ago, when I was able to speak to the police about their level of clear-up of ordinary crime, which is especially high—often, 40 to 50 per cent.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister understand that the people of Northern Ireland are deeply worried about the deteriorating security situation in the Province, bearing in mind the figures he gave to the House? Also, in a recent debate in the House, widespread anxiety was expressed by many hon. Members across the House that IRA Sinn Fein leader Martin McGuinness seemed to be above the law. In the light of the deteriorating security situation, is not it about time that Martin McGuinness was arrested forthwith and that the due process of law took place—or is he above the law because of negotiations with the Government?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: No one is above the law passed by the House of Commons. All those people who should be properly investigated for alleged crimes will be so investigated. There is no question of anyone being exempted from the criminal justice process as the hon. Gentleman implies.

Anglo-Irish Talks

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what security matters were discussed when he last met Ministers of the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Such discussions at our meetings take place in confidence, but security co-operation remains a matter of high importance for both Governments.

Mr. Enright: Has the abject failure of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in the recent elections —in spite of his vitriolic attacks on the Anglo-Irish declaration he gained less than one third of the votes—strengthened democratically the British Government's position vis-a-vis the Irish Government?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that the British Government's position can be viewed as one of antagonism towards the Irish Government, although a firm stance is being taken in the current important discussions. Our position is clear: it is based on the principle of democracy. The future of Northern Ireland must be determined only by democratic means. That also happens to be the position of the Irish Government, as is made clear in the joint declaration.

Mr. Forman: In discussing security matters with his counterpart in the Irish Republic, has my right hon. and learned Friend had any cause for optimism about the role that the United States Administration could play in assisting the search for peace and security in Northern Ireland?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I should like to say that there is a close relationship between the security forces of the Crown and their counterparts in the United States. Indeed, I have nothing but gratitude for the across-the-board co-operation that we receive from the American authorities.

Mr. McNamara: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman next meets the Irish Government to discuss security arrangements under the confidence-building measures of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will he discuss the proposals for the reform of the Police Authority in Northern Ireland, in particular the distinction between security and community policing and the accountability of the Chief Constable to the authority?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am glad to say that I had a most fruitful and successful meeting with the authority a couple of days ago, when very broad support was expressed for the consultative document. We both looked forward to co-operating in the translating of those broad-brush concepts into the appropriate legislative language. From time to time, the relationship of the public to the police and the police to the public is discussed in the intergovernmental conferences and I have no doubt that that will continue.

Criminal Justice

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for extending to Northern Ireland the tape recording of interviews arid the right of access to a solicitor for suspects; and if he will make a statement.

Sir John Wheeler: Interviews with suspects detained under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 are tape recorded. The Government believe that electronic recording of interviews with detained suspects in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism Act would not at present be in the overall interests of justice. The policy will be kept under review.
Access to legal advice is a statutory right for all suspects in police custody.

Mr. Mullin: In the light of all that we know, is it not extraordinary that courts in Northern Ireland are still sending people away for life imprisonment on the basis of confessions which are not recorded, which were extracted at Castlereagh, and to which the interviewees' solicitors have been routinely denied access? Is it not about time that some of the lessons that we have learnt over here were applied in Northern Ireland—and who better to apply them

than a Secretary of State who, as Attorney-General, presided over many of the disasters in our own legal system a few years ago?

Sir John Wheeler: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's last comments and I am sure that the House does not either. Access to solicitors may be delayed for up to 48 hours on strict security grounds. The criteria governing a delay are laid out in section 45. A similar power to delay is also available to the police in England and Wales under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The court system in Northern Ireland is impeccable. The judiciary is independent and makes its decisions accordingly. As to the use of technology, that matter is kept always under review.

Mr. Trimble: Is it not inconsistent for the Government to allow criminal proceedings to be brought against terrorist suspects on the basis of tape recordings of conversations in the open air while, for the purpose of criminal proceedings, they refuse to allow tape recordings of telephone conversations by terrorist suspects?

Sir John Wheeler: The use of material collected by intercept means and governed by warrant has to be carefully considered and is a matter for the prosecution authorities.

Mr. Stott: The Minister will be aware that Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, the independent commissioner for the holding centres, has recognised the need for proper safeguards to be introduced into the system, and he said so in his recent report. The report from John Rowe QC also suggested that terrorist suspects should be recorded on audiotape. I am disappointed at the Minister's reply. If those measures were introduced in Northern Ireland, clearly in our judgment they would build confidence in the security forces and provide police officers with protection against false allegations of physical and verbal harassment. I am at a loss as to why the Government still refuse to bring into operation these particular measures, which were recommended by their own advisers.

Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He raises very important and serious issues with which I have a good deal of sympathy. I am particularly grateful to Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and others who carried out a review of the procedures and their recommendations and advice are treated seriously. Equally, however, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have to take into account the advice that we receive from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, whose chief duty is to prevent the killing and terrorism in Northern Ireland. We must heed his opinion when he raises the importance of maintaining the present structure, but we will keep the matter under review and explore the possibilities to see what may be done.

Surface Links

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Commission of the European Union on surface links between Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tim Smith): Apart from the correspondence on the electricity interconnector, there have been no discussions.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to ask about the electricity interconnector but about the decision by the Commission to include Stranraer and Larne in the trans-European network, which I hope that he will join me in welcoming. Has he seen the report in the Glasgow Herald suggesting that the Secretary of State for Scotland is resisting a European Union plan for multi-million pound improvements to the rail link from Stranraer through my constituency to the channel tunnel? Will he meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and try to persuade him to stop treating citizens of Northern Ireland and south-west Scotland as second-class citizens in Europe?

Mr. Smith: I very much welcome the decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers to include the route in the trans-European network. Of course, the railway is important to traffic from Northern Ireland and I will certainly have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Gallie: Is my hon. Friend aware of the contract recently signed between Ayr hospital and health authorities in Antrim and Larne, which will bring mutual advantage to my constituents and to those of hon. Members representing Larne and Antrim? Does my hon. Friend approve of such links, and does he acknowledge that improved surface links between Stranraer and Lame will bring much further advantage?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the benefits of that arrangement.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: If European funding becomes available, will the Minister bear in mind the new industries that he has welcomed to parts of Antrim which are close to Lane? We need not only facilities at the harbour, but facilities leading to the ports so that the traffic can travel that way. I join my colleagues in Scotland in supporting that development.

Mr. Smith: I welcome the inward investment projects to which the hon. Gentleman referred and I recognise the importance of access to Larne port. We hope to upgrade part of the road in 1997–98.

Integrated Schools

Mr. Maginnis: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what matters he takes into consideration when deciding to establish an integrated school at post-primary level.

Mr. Ancram: We seek to satisfy ourselves about the potential viability of the proposed school; about its religious composition; and about whether suitable accommodation is being provided. We also examine carefully the overall circumstances of each proposal, including any representations received. Those procedures apply also to primary schools.

Mr. Maginnis: Notwithstanding that we would all, in ideal circumstances, like to see integrated education in Northern Ireland, is it not absolutely profligate of the

Government to support integrated secondary schools in, for example, my constituency of Fermanagh for 1 per cent. of the secondary school population when there is already over-provision of between 10 and 15 per cent. in that sector? How does the Minister think that the 99 per cent. of people will feel when they see small schools facing the axe so that money can be given to the 1 per cent. who will be privileged with their own special school?

Mr. Ancram: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I hope that he will read the paper that I put out yesterday, from which he will see that we are considering options to enhance the quality of education in small rural schools and not to axe them. As to integrated schools, and the one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in particular, I fully respect his view. The representations that he made to me were given close consideration both by me and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. However, it is Government policy to encourage and facilitate integrated education where there is proven parental demand for it. It is also Government policy to give parents choice in education where that is possible. In the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, both criteria were met.

Ms Hoey: I very much welcome the move towards integrated education in Northern Ireland, but what are the criteria for considering an integrated school? Half the children on the island of Rathlin, for example, are educated in a home tuition unit and the other half in a Church school. Does that situation not present an ideal opportunity to allow the home tuition unit on Rathlin island to become an integrated school?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Lady will have heard me set out the criteria for an integrated school. One is the viability of the proposed school. Obviously we carefully consider any representations made to us, where there is sufficient parental demand in that context.

Peace Process

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to be able to announce the commencement of detailed negotiations and discussions on the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Members for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) and for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice).

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that a substantial body of opinion in Northern Ireland, southern Ireland and the United Kingdom is for the recommencement of detailed discussions and negotiations? Will not the time arrive when, if Sinn Fein and the men of violence fail to say that they do not support a continuation of violence, those discussions and negotiations must go ahead?

Mr. Ancram: I agree with my hon. Friend, who properly reflects feeling in both parts of the island of Ireland. However, agreement will not be achieved by artificially forcing the pace, by shouted slogans or blazing headlines. It will be achieved only by a careful and considered advance by all participants towards a common and widely acceptable position which meets the aspirations of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGrady: As the Minister has declared that he is aware of the intense demand in Northern Ireland for the recommencement of inter-party talks, does he accept that their recommencement and the peace process are not mutually exclusive but could run in parallel? There is a feeling in Northern Ireland of procrastination surrounding the inter-party talks, which are the most meaningful Ray of establishing peace in the long run. Will the Minister also confirm that talks will be on the basis of the March 1991 inter-party agreement?

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am certain that he would agree that, while we all wish to see multilateral talks recommence at an appropriate moment, it would be premature to try to get everybody around a table until the elements for agreement are in place. For that reason, I wish to continue my discussions with three of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to try to explore further what common ground is available on which we can advance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months this country lost the lowest ever number of days to strikes? Is it not sad that that record is being spoilt by a trade union which, in pursuit of an 11 per cent. pay claim, yesterday inflicted hardship and inconvenience on thousands of travellers and commuters, including many of my constituents in Hertfordshire? Is it not conspicuous that that is not being condemned in any quarter by the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: Overall, our industrial relations record is extremely good, and the number of days lost in strikes is lower than it has been for more than 100 years. We now lose fewer days to strikes than Germany, France or the United States per head of population. As for yesterday's strike, the disruption that was caused to millions of people was inexcusable. Most of the public sector has settled on increases around the rate of inflation. The dispute is over a bid for an 11 per cent. increase before negotiations have even begun about productivity. It is unacceptable, it cannot be right and it should be condemned by every Member of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that when yesterday his Chancellor ruled out tax cuts he was admitting what the Prime Minister refused to admit on Tuesday—that a second round of tax increases will go ahead next year and will cost a typical British family £800 a year more in tax?

The Prime Minister: I suppose that there must be some occasion on which the right hon. Lady will address the current issue of the strike and not wriggle away from it. If she is so concerned about tax, perhaps she will now

withdraw all the public expenditure promises that she and her colleagues have made, and which inevitably would lead to higher taxation in future. If she will not withdraw those public expenditure promises, will she please indicate how they will be paid for and by what amount tax will rise?

Mrs. Beckett: That is twice in one week that the Prime Minister has refused to answer the question. Let us try again. Taxes will go up next year, won't they? Just say yes.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady knows the contents of the Budget and knows also that she is wriggling and hiding behind promises that she cannot substantiate. Our tax position is clear and open and people know what it is. We have set out a position that is right for this country and which has brought this country back to better economic circumstances than it has known for many years. That is an honest and straightforward position, unlike the position of the right hon. Lady who makes promises of increased expenditure with no indication whatever as to whether she will borrow to meet them and put up interest rates, or tax to meet them, or break those promises.

Mrs. Beckett: But does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor that those tax increases, and the threat of interest rate increases, are a direct result of the Government's economic failure and their track record of boom and bust? Whom does he think the Chancellor was condemning—Lord Lawson as Mr. Boom, or the Prime Minister himself as Mr. Bust?

The Prime Minister: That was very well rehearsed, but it will not win the right hon. Lady very many votes. As for interest rates, I wonder if the right hon. Lady can remember a time when interest rates under a Labour Government were as low as they have been under this Government for the past 15 months. I wonder if she can remember a time when inflation was as low as it is under this Government now. I wonder if she can remember a time when our growth rate was twice as high as that of our European competitors: The answer is that she cannot—and, under any Labour Government, that would never be so.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Labour party has voted against every single tax reduction that has been introduced, over many years, by Conservative Governments, and has voted against every tax increase? Does he consider that to be consistency or stupidity?

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is the Executive that is responsible to the House, and the Executive that must answer questions, not the Opposition. That is the basis on which our democracy is built.

Mr. Butler: I apologise, Madam Speaker. It was because I was so surprised to be called.
Would my right hon. Friend consider such conduct on the part of his party to be consistent or stupid, had it taken place?

The Prime Minister: The Opposition's position is certainly consistently stupid, and stupidly consistent.

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the people are often much more sensible than politicians? If so, has he reflected that last week—not only in Essex, but in a continuous, uninterrupted line from Dover to Oban—his policies were rejected and Labour's were endorsed? Does he not recognise that he is increasingly seen as the captain of the Titanic—carrying on regardless, blaming the iceberg and determined to rearrange the deckchairs while he puts people's lives at risk with his own reckless policies?

The Prime Minister: Well, that was quite an effort. There are certainly occasions on which the public are much more sensible than politicians. They were much more sensible than Opposition politicians in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and they will be more sensible than Opposition politicians again at a later date in 1996 or 1997.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the administration of law in this country now protects the civil liberties of yobs, bullies, violent criminals and drug barons so effectively that the civil liberties of the law-abiding majority are endangered? The Conservative party never wanted that, the people never wanted it and the Cabinet never wanted it. If the legal structure is being undermined, should we not find out who the termites are before introducing further criminal justice legislation?

The Prime Minister: I think that it is necessary to look at the interests of the majority of the people in the country. I share my hon. Friend's view: our present criminal justice legislation was formulated with that very much in mind, as were some of the ideas that I have outlined to the House on other occasions.

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, in support of his campaign for a more civilised Question Time, which I hope is still continuing, and in the hope of a rational reply, 24 hours ago I sent him the following supplementary question: because of his own personal responsibility and his Government's responsibility for introducing and promoting personal pensions, will he now give, in clear and simple language, a guarantee that the millions of people who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and occupational schemes and who have been subjected to bad advice will have all their losses made up and their full pension rights restored?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may not be quite aware of the present situation. The regulator has made it clear that he will use his powers to ensure that anyone who was mis-sold a pension will have a remedy. There is no need for investors in personal pensions to be too concerned; the hon. Gentleman should have understood that. Within the next few weeks, the Securities and Investments Board is due to publish a full report setting out the terms of redress which should be applied to investors who have been disadvantaged by that advice. They would be wise to wait for that report and not listen to the hon. Gentleman's scaremongering.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the national health service reforms there was no such thing as equality of health treatment in this country and it depended entirely on where one lived? If one lived in Lancaster, one received good treatment, but if one lived in parts of the rest of the country, one did not. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the reforms, best practice is spreading throughout the land?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that that is the case. The health reforms are spreading best practice in every part of the United Kingdom and removing many of the anomalies that existed previously. That, and the increased resources available to the national health service, are intended to ensure that we have the best possible national health service for our nation that we can possibly afford.

Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Eagle: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are currently spending £121,800 a year of taxpayers' money on the salary of the chairman of Railtrack, who works only a three-day week? Is that value for money?

The Prime Minister: If he turns Railtrack into the efficient organisation that customers who use trains wish to see, yes.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Duncan: Will the Prime Minister convey to the local government commission my constituents' over-whelming gratitude for recommending the return of the ancient and valiant little county of Rutland? Will he hop across from Huntingdonshire and hang a horseshoe in Oakham castle to celebrate that sensible and popular decision?

The Prime Minister: I know from my own experience how strong my hon. Friend's campaign for the return of Rutland has been and I congratulate him on the outcome. He mentioned other counties. I am familiar with one near to Rutland, which I hope will also return. I believe that questionnaires are to be sent to every household, which means that local people will be able to express their views on the matter and on what they wish the outcome to be. That is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hill: If the Cabinet is so bad that it needs a drastic reshuffle, as he promised on Monday, should not the Prime Minister take his fair share of the blame and reshuffle himself as well?

The Prime Minister: In the interests of helping the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him, first, that whereas on Tuesday he told the House that unemployment was up in


his constituency, today I can tell the House after yesterday's figures that it is down—and I hope that he is grateful. The words that he metaphorically put in inverted commas—"drastic reshuffle"—have not crossed my lips.

Mr. Lamont: May I urge the Prime Minister at the forthcoming summit in Corfu to reject firmly the candidature of the Belgian Prime Minister for the presidency of the Commission? Even if Britain did not have an excellent candidate with a brilliant negotiating track record, is it not true that Mr. Dehaene is a federalist

of the old-fashioned type and that no Belgian candidate would resist the ever-increasing demands of the Brussels bureaucracy?

The Prime Minister: At the moment there are only two declared candidates for the post—Sir Leon Brittan, whom we back strongly, and Dr. Ruud Lubbers. Both are highly respected in the European Community and are well known to all the member states. I have made no secret of my belief that Leon Brittan is the right candidate to be President of the Commission and he will have our strong support at Corfu. At this stage, I am not prepared to declare a position on any other candidate or possible candidate.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House please state the forthcoming business of the House?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 JuNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day) (1st part). Until Seven o'clock, there will be a debate on "Reform of Parliamentary Procedure" on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by remaining stages of the Trade Marks Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Insurance Companies (Third Insurance Directives) Regulations.
TUESDAY 21 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Sunday Trading Bill.
WEDNESDAY 22 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Failure of Her Majesty's Government on Overseas Aid and Development Policies" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 23 JUNE—Debate on "Opportunities for UK Exporters" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 24 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 27 JUNE—Until Seven o'clock, motions on the Ports (Northern Ireland) Order and the Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (No.2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 22 June to consider European Community document No. 10635/93 relating to guarantees for consumer goods and after sales services.
[Wednesday 22 June:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: 10635/93, Guarantees for Consumer Goods and After Sales Service. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 48-iv (1993–94) and HC 48-xxi (1993–94).]

Mr. Tony Banks: When is the summer recess?

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for the Opposition days. I appreciate that it will be possible for us to raise the question of Rwanda during the Opposition day debate, but it would be more appropriate if there were to be a debate on that in Government time. Is the Leader of the House able to tell us that, as things develop in Rwanda, he will be willing to allocate Government time to discuss that?
Is the Leader of the House yet able to give the House assurances about the two key economic debates that are required by the unified Budget process before the House rises for the summer recess? The House will need to know when we can expect the publication of the second set of Industry Act forecasts and we should like to know that we will have a one-day debate in Government time on those forecasts.
When will the Leader of the House be able to announce the date for the one-day debate on individual departmental expenditure plans? We have not had such a debate since 1991.
Finally, when will the Leader of the House be in a position to announce the date of the summer recess?

Mr. Newton: I saw some tension between the hon. Gentleman's opening question and the clearly heard sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) who asked about the date of the recess. I also saw tension between all the demands for debates and the demands for, no doubt, an early announcement of an early date for the recess.
Although I acknowledge that there is a clear commitment to an economic debate arising from the understanding at the time of the unified Budget, the more that I respond to the requests for debates, the more difficult it will be for me to respond to the last of the hon. Gentleman's requests and the longer into July we will sit. Of course, I shall bear his requests in mind.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the powers and immunities of police officers when dealing with teenage criminals, because many of us believe that it would be far better if police officers had the same powers as parents to administer reasonable corporal punishment, rather than having to drag the young offender before a magistrates court, which hands him over to a probation officer or a social worker, who tells him not to be naughty and gives him a free holiday?

Mr. Newton: I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point and I am sure that, in doing so, he responds to quite a significant amount of public concern that one has heard expressed. However, I am sure that he will understand that I would not feel it appropriate to comment, as a Minister from the Dispatch Box, on the decision taken by the magistrates in the case that he has in mind.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are one or two important outstanding obligations in our relationship with the European Union? Having regard to the recent Government performance in European elections, when will we have debates on the accession Bill, which is required, and the own resources Bill? It may be of some interest to hon. Members sitting behind him.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position, I am afraid, to give a definite and specific response to that particular request at the moment, although I am aware of the interest in those matters. I shall merely observe in passing that, in view of the results of the elections on Thursday, revealed on Sunday, I am slightly astonished that that point is raised from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm whether he, too, took a bet on the matter.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Instead of passing more legislation next week, which may be repealed or amended or scrapped by the EC Commission in five or 10 years' time, at great cost to the British taxpayer, will the Minister instead arrange a day's debate on early-day motion 1336?
[That this House, wishing to maintain its tradition of keeping its procedures up to date, and recognising the legal and consequential costs of European Court judgements which oblige the United


Kingdom to amend or effectively to scrap legislation passed years ago, and accepting the implications of the fact that loosely worded European legislation does not achieve real clarity until the European Commission invites the Court to determine us precise meaning, believes that it would be in the public and the taxpayers' interest to submit all new Parliamentary legislation before the House of Lords stage to the officials of the Commission of the European Union to establish whether they consider that its contents are in keeping with the various treaties approved by Parliament.]
It suggests that, to save a great deal of money for the taxpayer and trouble and inconvenience, every piece of legislation passed through the House should be sent to the officials in Brussels, to receive their stamp of approval, in order to avoid such ridiculous and costly burdens on the taxpayer as a consequence of the treaties, to which we have foolishly agreed.

Mr. Newton: I always listen with close attentiveness to my hon. Friend, a fellow Member for the county of Essex. However, if he has in mind the accession treaty, I must say that it is a virtually universal desire of hon. Members to see the European Union enlarged in the way allowed for by the treaty.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Will the Lord President accept that there will be great disappointment among my constituents that the order implementing the Government's proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Cleveland does not feature in next week's business? Will he give an undertaking that, when the matter has cleared its judicial review, which I hope will be very soon, the Government will use all their best endeavours to bring the order before the House so that the matter may be resolved and proceeded with before the summer recess?

Mr. Newton: I certainly undertake to bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's representations and, indeed, no doubt, those of others as well. However, I can give no commitment on an exact date at the moment. In a sense, he half-answered his own question by referring to judicial review. It would clearly be inappropriate to proceed while that is going on.

Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on early-day motion 1330?
[That this House congratulates the staff and management of the Chiltern Line for maintaining rail services to passengers during the RMT strike on Wednesday 15th June.]
It stands in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). A debate would enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to salute the dedication and professionalism of the railwaymen who, yesterday, kept the Chiltern line open to travellers, allowing myself and hundreds of my constituents to go about their normal business and meant that, encouraged by their professionalism, many more people used the trains, rather than took their cars to the roads, which would be the unfortunate consequence of the strike-happy attitude of so many Opposition Members.

Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend and I recognise the efforts of the staff on his railway line to whom he referred and also of those who ensured that trains were also running on a number of other lines, including, I understand, those affecting Southend, Barking, Oxford and Worcester.

Mr. George Stevenson: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement about one of the most well-known British companies—Wedgwood—which is embarking on the expansion of its production facilities in another country? Does not such action fly in the face of the Government's claim that the climate in this country now favours investment? Does not he realise that it is also a savage blow to the economy of north Staffordshire?

Mr. Newton: As it happens, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be here to answer questions next Wednesday; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his point then. For the moment, I can say only that, although the climate for investment in this country—including investment from overseas—has undoubtedly been greatly improved over the past 15 years, it is also important that our firms should be in a position to do business overseas.

Sir Anthony Grant: Will the terms of the motion for Monday's business be sufficiently widely drawn to enable us to discuss the farce of Prime Minister's Question Time which, after all, only started as recently as the regime of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx?

Mr. Newton: Clearly, I cannot tell my hon. Friend what the terms of the motion will be, because that is in the hands of the Opposition. However, he will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on these matters and that it appeared to win considerable approval from all parties. I also believe that the Procedure Committee gave some consideration to these issues yesterday and has decided to seek evidence from me and my opposite numbers in the House.

Mr. George Galloway: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House early-day motion 1276, which is entitled "Atrocity in Kuwait City"?
[That this House welcomes the forthcoming visit to Parliament of U.S. citizen Naim Farhat, whose father and younger brother were brutally murdered in Kuwait City on 2nd March 1991, six days after the allied Liberation of Kuwait, and whose sister Naimat was raped, shot in the head and left for dead; notes that after intense U.S. congressional pressure the Kuwaiti Emirate eventually tried a Kuwaiti police officer, finding him guilty of the double murder and Naimat's attempted murder but insisting that the young woman 'invented' the rape accusation to 'whip up anti-Kuwaiti feelings'; and joins U.S. and international womens and human rights activists in calling for the withdrawal of the smear of false rape allegations against Naimat, the prosecution of the still unpunished accomplices, some of whom are connected to high Kuwaiti personages, full compensation to the family for their horrific ordeal, the disinternment of the dead victims and their re-burial in their home country of Lebanon.]
It concerns the murder of the father and brother, and her attempted murder and rape, of Naim Farhat, who is in the House this afternoon. She is now living with a brother in the United States. Given that the family have alleged that the son of the Foreign Minister of Kuwait, Nasser Sabah al-Ahmed, and the crown prince of Kuwait, Saad Abdullah al-Sabah—both members of a Government returned to power at the point of British guns—are personally involved in the commission and cover-up of the crime, would not it be appropriate for the House to debate next week Britain's close and cordial relations with Kuwait so that justice may be won for this tragically afflicted family?

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the appropriate response is for me to say that the investigation of any such alleged crime is the responsibility of the Kuwaiti authorities, but we have certainly encouraged them in their efforts to bring those responsible to justice.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on education in Kent, in view of the fact that, earlier this week, the Labour and Liberal parties voted to remove representatives of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church from the education resources sub-committee, thus denying the major spiritual influences in Kent access to influence the economic activity of the education authority?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise to make time for a debate on precisely that matter next week, but I hope that my hon. Friend's words will be considered by those at whom they are directed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We are to have a debate on Tuesday on one fairly contentious aspect of social security legislation, but would it be possible to extend it to reconsider benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds in light of the Prime Minister's disgraceful comments about young people begging in our streets, which lie made during the European election campaign? Could it also be extended to cover civil rights for disabled people? Both topics emerged as major issues in the run-up to the election, and there is surely a need for the House to debate them.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady well knows that, despite the ingenious way in which she has managed to ask her questions without incurring your displeasure, Madam Speaker, there is no scope for enlarging consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill to include such issues.
As for the first part of the hon. Lady's question, it would be interesting to get some answers from elsewhere as to whether Opposition parties intend to return to a regime that would discourage youngsters of 16 and 17 from either staying at school or taking training that is offered to them.

Mr. Bill Walker: Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the conduct of Scottish local government? He will be aware that, under the unusual procedure used to move the writ for the Monklands, East by-election, it will not be possible to raise matters relating to Monklands in the normal course of events because of the way in which we carry out our business.

Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can undertake to provide time for an early debate in view of the amount of time that has already been spent on debating local government in Scotland; no doubt there may be further opportunities in due course. I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's concern that the matters about which he is concerned should be further exposed in the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House agree that there is not a great deal of business left for next week and the remaining weeks in the run-up to the recess? In view of that, would it be a good idea to allocate a day or two for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, especially in view of the fact that when the House was in recess the Government, the Prime Minister and other Ministers went to Normandy and praised the disabled

people who hobbled along the beaches at Normandy and Arromanches? Could there be a more sickening, hypocritical sight than that of a Government praising the veterans of D-day and at the same time kicking their crutches away?

Mr. Newton: I have made comments, as have many others, about the allocation of time and the fact that the House decided the allocation of time for private Members' Bills many months ago, and I do not propose to add to that this afternoon.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given the huge importance that the presidency of the Commission now has in the national lives of all the EC member states, and given the declaration at the end of the Maastricht treaty committing our partners to a bigger role for national Parliaments, what role will this Parliament have in the appointment of the President of the Commission?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is perhaps implying a view; a view was also expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) during Prime Minister's questions. I think that my hon. Friends are capable of finding ways of expressing their view—and, indeed, have done so.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Lord President a question of which I gave his office notice this morning? Is there any chance of a statement next week either from the Foreign Office or—better still—the Crown Office about the statements in the court in Beirut of Youseff Shaban to the effect that he put the bomb on Pan-Am flight 103 which blew up over Lockerbie? Can he ask what the Government's response is to that statement, which some of us take with a pinch of salt? Can he also take into account the fact that distinguished Scottish lawyers have said that the whole Crown Office approach to Lockerbie is much too simplistic?

Mr. Newton: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the evidence available supports the charges against the two Libyan suspects. He has not seen any evidence relating to involvement in the Lockerbie disaster by Youseff Shaban. We understand from the Lebanese judicial authorities that Mr. Shaban made no confession of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing prior to his reported outburst in court. Therefore, the situation is—I say this straightforwardly to the hon. Gentleman, acknowledging, if I may, his courtesy—that we are seeking further details of that report. If it proves to be relevant, it will of course be investigated. But it will be for the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police to determine what investigation is necessary.

Mr. Oliver Heald: In considering the earlier request for a debate on industrial relations, will my right hon. Friend see whether it is possible to have wording that is wide enough to deal with not only the unnecessary rail strike but unemployment? This week, we had the good news of another fall in unemployment and the report from Manpower that we have the best employment prospects for four years. All the comments that are constantly being made by Labour Members about full employment suggest that bringing in the social chapter and a minimum statutory wage would be some sort of helpful approach.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. It is certainly very striking that, of all the subjects that the Opposition could have chosen for debate on their day next Wednesday, they chose the one that they did. Perhaps it demonstrates even more clearly than before their reluctance to discuss unemployment simply because it is falling and—perhaps even more strikingly—the unwillingness of anyone whose name has been mentioned in connection with the Labour leadership election to utter a word of condemnation, or almost a word of any kind, about the present rail strike.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on election law in the light of the fact that the election was abused in the west country when a Literal Democrat candidate stood? Does not that have implications for the Liberal Democrats on this occasion, but also for other political parties? Surely the matter should be sorted out.

Mr. Skinner: It got the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) £2,500.

Mr. Newton: It is fairly rare that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is helpful to me, but I shall express my gratitude, take his good will and sit down again.

Mr. Simon Burns: Given that it is a well-known fact that the Liberal Democrats are all things to all people, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the debate on Monday will be a very wide-ranging one on parliamentary procedures? Will it include the procedures for being elected to Parliament, so that we can look into the problems when someone such as Mr. Alec Kellaway changes party on the eve of a poll? Perhaps it could also give members of the Liberal Democrat party the opportunity to explain their position to the House, as there are rumours that one of them is possibly considering joining Mr. Kellaway in the Labour party.

Mr. Newton: I am beginning to think that there might be a range of interesting issues to be discussed, were I able to make time available. Perhaps that will be of some comfort to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), whose question I did not mean to be quite so dismissive with. It was just that I was left virtually open-mouthed by the friendliness from below the Gangway.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The business that the House wishes to discuss and complete before the recess more than any other is the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Time after time, the House has made its opinion clear through a number of different avenues. If Members cannot decide that we will control our business through this House, where are we at? What is stopping us from doing what we want? The Leader of the House should respond to the feeling expressed by masses of hon. Members and should give us the chance to vote through the matter, one way or the other.

Mr. Newton: As I have said on a number of occasions, the House controls the time available for proceedings in such matters and did so through the Sessional Orders that it passed last autumn, at the beginning of the Session. For my part, the appropriate course is for the Government to concentrate, as they are doing very firmly, on introducing what they believe to be practical and workable proposals

—unlike those in the Bill—to achieve the aim that we all share, which is to advance further the rights of disabled people.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the RMT strike last Wednesday and the possibility of another next Wednesday and more to follow, bearing in mind the intense suffering that the strike meant for my constituents, including children who needed to travel by train to take public examinations, whose future depended on their performance that day and about whom the Labour party and others do not seem to care at all?

Mr. Newton: While I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate, I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about the inconvenience, indeed hardship, caused to many people. In my judgment, like that of all Conservative Members and, probably, privately of many Opposition Members, it is extremely irresponsible of the unions to undertake a series of strikes about an 11 per cent. pay claim.

Mr. David Winnick: Reverting to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier regarding the summer recess, is he aware that Opposition Members are increasingly concerned that we are drifting almost to a part-time House of Commons, with more recesses—not holidays—than are really necessary? We believe that Parliament, or the House of Commons certainly, should remain a full-time place and I would deplore a three-month break. If the right hon. Gentleman is a victim of the reshuffle, will he pass the message on to his successor?

Mr. Newton: I will readily receive the message directed to myself. If what I said earlier was not clear, I shall say that some of the suggestions that I have seen in newspapers about the early date of the recess are far-fetched indeed, and I hope that nobody has booked tickets on the basis of them.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a wide-ranging debate on the economy so that the three contenders in the Opposition's jumble sale can tell the House what minimum wage rate is consistent with their concepts of full employment?

Mr. Newton: I should be happy to see whether I could find time for such a debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is urging me to find time for a wide-ranging debate on the economy, which we will certainly seek to do. There are a number of questions, alongside the one that my hon. Friend has asked, which we should like to see answered—not least, which of the Government's trade union reforms they would reverse, whether they would ever oppose any strike and what they have to say about the current rail strike.

Mr. Peter Hain: In view of the briefing from 10 Downing street at the weekend, contradicting the President of the Board of Trade's statement to the House on the Post Office privatisation, could the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the matter so that we can clarify the Government's policy? We could also take the opportunity to condemn the statements and the behaviour of the chief executive of the Post Office, a public servant who has openly adopted a political stance favouring the privatisation of the Post Office in conspiracy with the President of the Board of Trade, possibly against the Prime Minister.

Mr. Newton: We shall be publishing the Green Paper as soon as we can, and the hon. Gentleman might wish to hold his fire until then.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the important subject of literal democracy? During that debate, we could consider the personal impact made on the people of Devon and East Plymouth in the European elections by the Liberal Democrat candidate, Mr.—[Interruption.]— he obviously did not make an impact on Liberal Democrat Members here either. We are told by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that if people in that European constituency wished to identify the Liberal Democrat candidate, they had to crawl all over the small print on the ballot paper.

Mr. Newton: I shall take that as another interesting suggestion for the debate sought by the hon. Member for Workington.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Could the Leader of the House arrange next week for the Prime Minister to respond to early-day motion 1287?
[That this House applauds the efforts of the Rail and Marine Workers Union and the International Transport Workers Federation for financing and undertaking a marine search for the MV 'Derbyshire' that sank in the China Sea with the loss of all her crew; and wishes them every success in their endeavours that will be welcomed by seafarers worldwide, and in particular the bereaved families of the MV 'Derbyshire's crew who have waited for far too long for a reopening of the inquiry into the tragic loss of the 'Derbyshire' that casts serious doubts on the safety and seaworthiness of this type of bulk carrier.]
That motion and early-day motions 1310 and 1317 refer to the MV Derbyshire and the recent events concerning the sinking of the vessel. They propose that the House address the question not only of the Derbyshire, but of bulk carriers in general.
Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to state next week that he supports the view that the Derbyshire families are entitled at this stage to an inquiry and to demand that the Government should now take responsibility for furthering the investigation to establish the cause of the loss of that vessel and its 44 crew?

Mr. Newton: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, the Government share the sympathy which he has expressed to the families of those lost on the Derbyshire, and we understand the renewed concern following the discovery of the wreck. The chief inspector of marine accidents will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in due course whether there is any justification to reopen the investigation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on Members' interests so that the practice of Liberal Democrat Members of using private polls for personal gain can be thoroughly examined? Would not that also give us an opportunity to recall that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke for three hours one Friday morning, thus talking out Enoch Powell's abortion Bill?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on the Register of Members' Interests, as shown in today's Votes and Proceedings, has agreed a report. I cannot yet be sure whether that will require a debate, but I will bear it in mind.

Mr. John McAllion: According to news reports this morning, President Clinton has praised the city of Houston in Texas for its recent record in reducing crime. That city has encouraged householders to arm themselves and shoot strangers who approach their houses, and an innocent British citizen, Andrew de Vries, was recently gunned down by a householder in Houston. May we, therefore, have an early statement from the Foreign Office about the advice that it is issuing to British citizens who go to Houston and, more important, about the assistance that it will provide to British citizens who, tragically, fall foul of a gun law under which people shoot first and ask questions later?

Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Michael Bates: Has the Labour party approached my right hon. Friend to use one of its Opposition supply days to debate early-day motion 457?
[That this House, noting the grossly unfair distribution of wealth in Britain under capitalism and the widening gap between rich and poor that has taken place over the last 15 years and recalling that the present Budget deficit is entirely attributable to tax reductions given to the richest taxpayers, and the cost of unemployment that was deliberately created, is convinced that the burden of military expenditure is far higher than can be justified and that other Government policies have been wasteful and inefficient; believes that the imposition of higher levels of VAT and its extension to fuel imposes a heavy burden on those least able to pay, as do other increases in taxation imposed in the recent Budget; rejects arguments that all reductions in taxation are necessarily desirable regardless of the purpose for which the tax is raised and the social consequences that would follow; affirms that the recovery of full employment, planned defence diversification, the rebuilding of our infrastructure, the extension of essential public services and the regeneration of British industry will require massive public investment, the harnessing of the nation's savings and taxation fairly shared and assessed on the ability to pay; and calls for a clear socialist commitment to be made now, about future economic, fiscal, industrial and social policies to secure these objectives.]
The motion calls for a clear socialist commitment to massive public spending and has been signed by 50 Labour Members. Should that debate take place, may an opportunity be given to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether he agrees with that sizeable chunk of Labour's electoral college?

Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that I have had no such request for a debate; nor do I expect one. Indeed, on the form of the last few days, even if I were to find time for such a debate, I doubt whether we would get any answers from Opposition Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on football in this country, not simply because I should like to have a whinge on how Chelsea was robbed blind in the cup final by a strutting pedant from a public school who was purporting to be a referee but so that we could discuss the allocation of cup final tickets, the activity of touts outside Wembley stadium on the day, and the Football Association's decision to impose some horrendous penalties on Tottenham Hotspur? Those matters need to be discussed in the House because our constituents are discussing them outside.

Mr. Newton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness about the outcome of the cup final. There may be one or two hon. Members from Manchester here. I had better not express my view—[Interruption.] I shall be


cautious about getting involved in the matter between Chelsea and Manchester. It was an interesting game. The hon. Gentleman's last point is a matter for the Football Association and, again, the Government would not wish to get involved in it.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: May we have a debate on the serious issue of the import of Brazilian mahogany into Britain, given the serious damage done to both the ecology and the lives of indigenous people by the extraction of that mahogany? Although most of the imports of mahogany are illegal, the authorities here have failed to investigate the matter or take legal action.

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman is alleging a failure properly to enforce the law on imports into this country—in this case, of certain forms of timber—my right course is to draw the matter to the attention of the relevant enforcement authorities.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you would consider helping the Scots. As you know, every third Monday, the Attorney-General answers questions in the House. Alas, the Lord Advocate representing the Crown Office has no opportunity to do so.
I understand that the Chair is involved in discussions about how the Lord Advocate can report directly to the House of Commons. This afternoon, we had an example of that when I asked the Leader of the House a question about Lockerbie, which, after all, was the biggest crime against civilians in the western world since 1945. The Lord Advocate has been making dismissive statements about a proper investigation of extraordinary statements that have been made in middle east courts. I do not know whether those statements are valid, but some of us want to know what the Government intend to do to ascertain whether what is going on in the Beirut courts, with individuals claiming responsibility for the crime, will be properly investigated. The only way in which we could do that is to ask the Lord Advocate questions either upstairs in some Scottish Grand Committee procedure or if he could come to some other Committee established by Parliament.
As I understand it, there are discussions taking place, but they have been going on for some time on that matter and I wondered whether they were going to be brought to a head.

Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about this matter, but it is not a question at this stage for the Chair. It is something that the House itself must deal with. As he will know, the Leader of the House is on the Government Front Bench and will no doubt have heard his comments. Perhaps he can make some inquiries into those matters on behalf of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask you whether you consider, in your role as the protector of the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and protector of the rights of the House, that you might inquire into the matter of a question that I asked the Secretary of State for Wales,

who is in his place? I received an answer on 12 May concerning irregular payments made by the Welsh Development Agency to its staff throughout the 1980s.
A report appeared in a newspaper this morning that went into details about those irregular payments, and the new management of the WDA claimed the credit for initiating that investigation. I have had no answer from the Secretary of State. I wonder whether you could approach the office of the Secretary of State and ask him to put right that matter and make some type of statement to the House.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. That is disturbing to the Welsh affairs shadow Front Bench as well, because, in spite of the long period of notice that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) in writing to the Secretary of State six weeks ago and the thundering silence from the Welsh Office, it appears now that the device of the quango concerned itself issuing the information in the Daily Post for publication this morning is being used to throw Members of Parliament off the scent, and that Secretaries of State, who are responsible to the House even for the acts of their predecessors, are simply not prepared to abide by that accountability of which I believe that you, Madam Speaker, are the protector.

Madam Speaker: I obviously cannot concern myself with newspaper reports, but I am concerned if the hon. Gentleman has not had a response to the question that he has placed on the Order Paper. I place prime importance on the procedures whereby individual Members receive proper responses when they place questions, and that statements are made in the House before they are given to newspapers.
The Secretary of State for Wales is on the Front Bench and no doubt he will now deal directly with the matter as far as he is free and able to do so.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): indicated assent.

Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Further to a parliamentary written reply that I received from the Secretary of State for the Environment, have you had any indication that he wishes to come to the House to make a statement about his reply to me to say that he, along with the Secretary of State for Social Security, instructed parliamentary counsel to draft amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and for those amendments to be given to private Members? Have you had any indication that he will be coming to the House to make a statement about that disgraceful business?

Madam Speaker: I have had no such indication. I understand that the hon. Lady has written to me, but I have not as yet even seen her letter. Perhaps I can deal with it when I have seen her letter.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15 June] proposed on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), That the clause (Financing of local government in Wales) be read a Second time—
'.—The Secretary of State, after consulting the Treasury, shall within six months of this Act coming into force present a report to Parliament on methods to restructure the financing of local government in Wales; such report shall include consideration of—

(a) the feasibility of local government raising a local income tax, or receiving a proportion of the VAT and corporation tax arising from businesses within their area;
(b) a tax placed upon second homes in Wales, the proceeds of which shall accrue to local government; and
(c) the abolition of council tax and the uniform business rate.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I was somewhat put out last night on two accounts. First, I was put out by the way in which the debate was brought to a conclusion without any consultation with Members of Plaid Cymru, when we were fairly close to the end of a short debate, which we are now continuing, and which will no doubt take longer than it would have taken last night. I was even more put out by the response that I received from the Minister to the substance of the debate. The guts of the new clause was the question of how we make more resources available to local government and how we enable local government to have greater flexibility and discretion in the use of those resources, rather than its having to follow the diktats laid down by the Welsh Office and by central Government in London.
Goodness only knows, given the social and environmental conditions and the challenges of education and creating jobs in all our communities in Wales—especially in the run-down, old industrial areas, be it the slate quarrying areas in my constituency or the old coal mining and steel making areas—local government needs resources. It certainly needs more than it is getting and it also needs a greater discretion and flexibility to use resources to meet requirements in the various areas.
The Minister gave the impression that the council tax system is working perfectly. I do not doubt that it works better than the poll tax—it would be difficult not to be better. However, he must be aware, as I am, of countless constituents who feel that they have been the recipients of very rough justice under the banding system. He must also be aware of the strong feeling about the business rate. For many small businesses, that sort of overhead, in addition to the cost of water—which itself is often a heavy burden —could pull them down. There is a need to consider a more flexible system so that those who have difficulty paying could have lower bills while those who are doing well take on a little more of the burden. There is also the question of local government's use of the capital resources gained from selling council houses. There is a need to build new property for the thousands of people in Wales who are on housing waiting lists. All those matters need to be reviewed.
What disappoints me in particular is that the Government do not acknowledge the need to consider finance together with functions and structure. In the 1970s reorganisation—that was, after all, the baby of a Conservative Government—the opportunity was lost to look at finance, functions and structure together. That mistake is now being made again and I very much regret it.
I appreciate that we will not get much further on these issues this afternoon and that there is a wish to make progress on the Bill. However, I want to put to the Minister the fact that we must soon review the way in which the finances of local government work. There is also a need to give local government greater freedom and responsibility. By doing so, we will have a more meaningful form of democracy in local government in Wales.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 12

RIGHT TO NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

?.—The rights of employees of local authorities in Wales to notice of termination of employment and payment in lieu of notice, whether under contract or under sections 49 and 50 of and Schedule 3 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, whichever shall be the greater, shall be preserved.'.—[Mr. Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in clause 42, page 33, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 46.
No. 31, in clause 43, page 34, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.
Government amendment No. 62.
No. 34, in clause 44, page 34, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 35.
No. 12, in page 34, line 44, after 'treated', insert either'.
No. 13, in page 35, line 3, at end insert
'or to be entitled after 1st April 1996 to receive equivalent redundancy payments from the new principal council.'.
Government amendments Nos. 63 to 65.
No. 33, in clause 45, page 35, line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.
Government amendment No. 66.

Mr. Morgan: This is one of the most important groups of amendments that we shall discuss, for two reasons. First, 130,000 people work in local government in Wales and the Welsh Members who represent them here must be aware of the need to give them some reasonable protection of their accumulated rights—or acquired rights, to use the European phrase that has come to the fore in the last week following the historic judgment of the European Court of Justice.
The second reason is important procedurally—I know you will take a particular interest in that, Madam Speaker —and relates to events after Second Reading on 15 March. The point was raised in Committee, but this is the first opportunity that the Secretary of State will have had directly to deal with the matter since Second Reading, although apologies were made on his behalf in Committee.
On Second Reading on 15 March, the Secretary of State recognised that clause 44 did not give adequate protection to workers in local government who might be affected directly by the Bill in terms of loss of status, loss of earnings or, ultimately, loss of jobs. He said that clause 44 would be redrafted by the time the Bill reached Committee stage. Unfortunately, although that pledge was repeated in the wind-up speech on Second Reading by the Under-Secretary of State, who I am glad to see in his place, there were no amendments to clause 44.
4.15 pm
An apology was made by the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the Secretary of State, who was not a member of the Committee, but we have been told by people who have an extremely detailed knowledge of the proceedings of the House that the parliamentary draftsmen deputed to prepare the amendment to clause 44, as per the pledge given by the Secretary of State, were taken off it to follow instructions given to them by a non-Cabinet Minister, the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People, who was in his place five minutes ago, who issued instructions to the parliamentary draftsmen—I understand that it was the same parliamentary draftsmen—to stop preparing the amendments to clause 44 and instead to prepare the dilatory amendments to help the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) spike the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
We have been given two unsigned letters to that effect by people whose understanding of the proceedings of the House in preparation of legislation is extremely detailed. In attempting to pursue the matter and get the full facts, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales on 23 May on what date the instructions were given to the parliamentary draftsmen to prepare the amendments to clause 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill, as had been promised.

Mr. Alfred Morris: And by whom.

Mr. Morgan: I received no answer from the Secretary of State. He blocked it by saying that it is not the practice to provide details of internal decisions of that kind—a totally absurd answer as I asked the question only because, just five days previously on 18 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) had received an answer from a more junior Minister, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, to his question:
on what date the Minister for Disabled People authorised his Department to instruct Parliamentary Counsel on the drafting of the amendments tabled to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill".— [Official Report, 18 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 525.]
If the Minister of State can answer that on 20 April 1994 he authorised his officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to draft the said amendments that caused such interest at the time, particularly from you, Madam Speaker, I cannot understand why the Secretary of State for Wales cannot tell me, the people of Wales and the 130,000 people who work in local government in Wales on what date the Secretary of State sent his instructions to Parliamentary Counsel. I was told it was before; I am now told that it was after.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said this afternoon is highly disturbing in relation to the Government's tactics on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He is arguing that higher priority


was given to drafting the 80 amendments for Conservative Members to wreck the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill than was given to the keeping of a pledge to the House of Commons about the drafting of amendments to this Bill. That must be a very disturbing revelation for people on both sides of the House. I understand that what my hon. Friend has said is very well founded. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will now respond. He did not respond to the request for a written answer; I hope he will respond now. It is a very important House of Commons matter.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his further elucidation, and for confirmation of the importance of this issue by the person whose private Member's Bill was affected. It may not be proper for me to ask you, Madam Speaker, whether you could command the Secretary of State for Wales to answer the question.

Madam Speaker: Order. It would not be in order for me to enter the debate.

Mr. Morgan: But to stay within the rules of order of the House and to protect the public right of access to information—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman wrote to me on that matter and I responded—the House did not know that. That is why the hon. Gentleman is able to raise the issue again today. It is for the Minister to respond—and if the hon. Gentleman will bring his remarks to a conclusion, the Minister may do so.

Mr. Morgan: I will not bring my remarks to a conclusion just yet. The Secretary of State does not seem anxious to answer, but the Minister is rising in his place, so I will give way to him.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply to the hon. Gentleman, it is not usual for the Government to announce the dates on which instructions were given to counsel. However, I am prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that the date when final instructions regarding this particular matter were given to parliamentary draftsmen was 25 May.
I apologise to the House for the delay that occurred and for the fact that we were unable to produce amendments for the Committee stage as promised on Second Reading. The reason was that there had to be consultations within Government, and in particular with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for the Environment, because similar provisions have to apply in Scotland and England, in respect of local government reorganisation, as in Wales.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for going as far as he did, even though it would have been preferable for the Secretary of State to have answered, because he was not a member of the Committee and this is his first opportunity to apologise to the House for breaching the principle that if a Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet, makes a promise at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading to produce amendments in time for the Committee stage, it is kept. Such a promise is not meant to be like shortcrust pastry and easily broken, but is supposed to be of a cast-iron character.
I noticed that the Minister's answer was heavily qualified, for he used the words "final instructions". He said that they were given after the Committee had finished dealing with clause 44 on 17 May. Perhaps the Secretary of State can say when parliamentary draftsmen were first instructed to produce amendments to clause 44.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): I unreservedly apologise for not meeting the commitment that I gave. I agree with all right hon. and hon. Members that one's duties to the House are most important and that one should always endeavour to meet one's undertakings. I did my best. It is not always possible to get busy colleagues together as rapidly as necessary to secure collective agreement on important matters. I tried, I failed and I am extremely sorry. My right hon. Friend the Minister gave the truthful reason why we were unable to meet quickly enough to obtain the agreement needed, but we did so as soon as we could.

Ms Liz Lynne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like the Secretary of State for Wales to confirm—

Madam Speaker: Order. The point of order should be to me, not to the Secretary of State. It must concern a breach of the Standing Orders of the House or our rules of procedure.

Ms Lynne: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that what I am about to say in respect of the Minister's reply—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot give a ruling on anything that the hon. Lady is about to say. If the hon. Lady seeks to intervene, she can enter the debate—but she must not involve me in the debate.

Ms Lynne: I feel that the House may have been misled this afternoon, so I thought it would be more appropriate to raise a point of order.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should not use a point of order in that way. Obviously she has something to say, and she is perfectly entitled to intervene. If she wishes to do so, she must seek the consent of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

Mr. Morgan: I will first make the point that the Secretary of State has still not answered my question. Given the qualification in the Minister's response that "final instructions" were given on 24 May—which I am happy to accept—may the House be told whether earlier instructions were given, pertaining to the drafting of amendments to clause 44, as appears to be the case according to information that I received? If not, why did the Minister qualify his reply with the words "final instructions"?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The simple point is that one assumes that the draftsman reads Second Reading debates, and he would have seen from what was said on Second Reading that there would be changes.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I hope that before we finish this debate the Minister of State will rethink that answer, because it is totally inadequate. Is he saying that there was no contact other than that passive one, with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel being expected to read Second Reading debates and then request the draft amendments from the Minister? Is that the way in which


the Welsh Office works in respect of drafting amendments? If it is, it is not surprising that a more junior Minister than the Secretary of State for Wales was able to get priority in the queue.

Ms Lynne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I received an answer from the Secretary of State for Wales on 25 May in response to a written parliamentary question, in which I asked:
on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have (a) requested Parliamentary Counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.
The Secretary of State for Wales replied:
I am advised there have been no such requests or instructions since April 1992."—[Official Report, 25 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 176–177.]
I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would comment on what he feels about the timing of that answer.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for supplying that information, which I will have to digest. Clearly, she has asked similar questions of many other Ministers. What is astonishing is that on Second Reading the Secretary of State gave an undertaking, which was breached, and that there was a procedure—I am informed —which meant that the Secretary of State for Wales appeared to be in the slow lane and the Minister of State for the Disabled, in tabling the dilatory amendments—which, of course, do not assist the legislation, which is why the taxpayer pays the salaries of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—was put in the fast lane and given priority over the preparation of genuine and constructive improvements to legislation which were promised at the Dispatch Box.
That is an extremely unsatisfactory procedure when the futures of 140,000 people in local government are at stake on the one hand and the interests of 6 million disabled people are at stake on the other. Both have been shafted by a very shabby bit of dirty tricks at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Redwood: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I give way to one of the authors.

Mr. Redwood: That is a most unfair allegation. I have apologised to the House for the delay. I have given an honest explanation of the delay. It was a question of getting colleagues together and getting agreement on a general policy that would be relevant in Scotland and England, as well as Wales, to ensure that what we were doing was sensible or compatible, one with the other. My right hon. Friend gave a sensibly cautious reply about contacts with Parliamentary Counsel because neither he nor I usually undertake those contacts; they are undertaken by officials on our behalf, and we do not have the detailed knowledge of every contact that they have. But I now have advice to say that there was contact throughout April and May with Parliamentary Counsel, as one would expect, and they discussed options, but they were not able to give final instructions, because Ministers had not settled the policy. It is nothing to do with fast and slow lanes, or disagreements between ourselves and another Bill and another Minister. It is to do with settling our policy for this Bill to get it right.

Mr. Morgan: I do not think that we want to spend hours and hours on this issue, but on a like-for-like basis the Secretary of State has still not given the answer that is

comparable to that given by the Minister for the Disabled. He is talking about continuous contacts, as though it were impossible for any Minister to specify a single date on which instructions are issued. Yet a more junior Minister —the Minister of State for the Disabled—was able to do that, albeit under enormous pressure, which was exerted by you, Madam Speaker, by other hon. Members and by people outside, in relation to the disgust that people generally felt about the way in which the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was shafted, at taxpayer's expense and in an extremely illegitimate procedure. It was an abuse of the purposes to which the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is constitutionally put, and an unconstitutional method was used to shaft that Bill. What made matters much worse was the displacement of the proper use of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to produce the amendments that had been promised.
I consider Government amendment No. 62 inadequate. Any member of the 140,000 staff who work in local government in Wales will still encounter difficulties in the event of redundancy or any other detriment arising from the Bill. The amendment does not appear to give local government staff any right to sue a new authority through an industrial tribunal, claiming unfair or constructive dismissal or other detriment. Although they could sue the old authority, that authority will not be able to pay up if it no longer exists, and there appears to be no guarantee that the new authority would carry the obligation to meet any claim for damages if a tribunal found in favour of a staff member whose case was not considered until after 1 April 1996.
4.30 pm
It seems that there is to be no transfer to the new authority of the full legal liability in regard to such cases. It takes some time for constructive dismissal cases to be dealt with by tribunals. Would staff be able to sue the new authority? If it is the old authority that they must sue, how would they get that authority to pay up?
There is another reason why the Government amendment is not as good as our new clause 17. The right to consult and the right to proper collective representation appeared to be at the heart of last week's ruling by the European Court of Justice, which conferred the continuation of rights acquired in previous employment when there is a legal transfer to a new employer. The amendment, however, does not seem to cover that.
It could be said that, until that ruling by the European Court, the Government could not have known that such a provision would have to be incorporated into the Bill. However, the matter has been in progress since the Government introduced their 1981 legislation, and they have had a fair bit of time to consider the implications of the acquired rights directive.
The Welsh Office, and many Welsh local authorities, have been at the heart of many of the most interesting test cases involving the directive and the continuation of workers' rights after their transfer of employment. We need only think of the Dyfed school cleaners test case, and a case that directly involved the Welsh Office's own lawyers—the South Glamorgan health authority case, in which the Welsh Office was involved as a party. That case concerned the potential privatisation of cleaning and catering services at four of the authority's hospitals; the authority was responsible to the Welsh Office.
I should have expected those test cases to have taught the Welsh Office lawyers a lesson—that they must cover the point arising from the acquired rights directive, particularly the right to consultation and collective representation, in legislation that will transfer 140,000 people. As far as we can tell, our new clause complies with both the spirit and the letter of the directive; more important, it will leave local government staff no worse off than they are now in terms of rights acquired through length of service, employment contracts and so forth.
It would save us a good deal of time and trouble if the Government were willing to accept today that their amendment may not be as up to date as they would like, although it has taken them three months—since Second Reading—to produce it. As the Government are already on the back foot on this issue, it would be helpful if, before the Bill goes to another place, they would further improve it, after taking on board some of the points that have been made since the path-breaking judgment of the European Court of Justice last week and after perusing new clause 17 and some of the other amendments.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I must confess that, due possibly to my ignorance and despite the Secretary of State's genuine promises on Second Reading, I found it difficult in Committee to understand where the staff stood in terms of the law and the way in which Government would handle the problems. As Opposition Members represent so many constituents who serve in local government, we should not allow the Bill to be enacted without a most thorough examination of how the Government intend to safeguard staff interests after the changes, which are beyond the control and responsibility of the staff. Reorganisation will be imposed on many people.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as recently as 14 June, a letter was sent dealing with regulations on redundancy? There is great consternation among local government staff in Wales, who believe that, at this late stage, redundancy terms are far worse than Welsh Office officials led them to believe during negotiations. The percentage of staff who will be redundant will find themselves in a terrible position. It will be difficult for them to find commensurate employment and they will have little compensation.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. and learned Gentleman rightly brings that serious issue to the attention of the House. I did not realise that such a letter existed. It adds to my preamble in which I said that we owe it to the staff to consider the matter carefully. We shall debate the issue until we find out what the position will be for local government staff, who will be seriously affected by the legislation. Whatever happens, many staff will experience a disturbing and anxious time.
The only way of handling the issue is to note what we have been told in the House, and particularly in Committee, in order to understand the ramifications of amendment No. 62. In Committee, two significant statements were made by the Under-Secretary. He said:
The Government accept that TUPE may apply to transfers in the public sector, including local government reorganisation, but the way in which it does so would depend on circumstances in each case. The Government do not accept that in the context of reorganisation all staff would necessarily have a right of transfer under TUPE. No doubt, we may want to return to that later.
That statement on the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection

of Employment) Regulations 1981 applied to a considerable number of staff who were affected by reorganisation.
Later in the debate, the Under-Secretary clarified his argument. He referred to the advice of Patrick Elias QC, which had been received by the Local Government Management Board. He said that the advice
suggests that senior and central administrative staff in split authorities, such as counties, are less likely to be protected than similar staff in merged authorities, such as most district councils. If that advice is correct, it emphasises the importance of devising staff transfer arrangements that, as far as possible, provide equality of treatment for all staff."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 May 1994; c. 524–40.]
That statement lifted the veil on the first statement that some staff were covered by TUPE and some were not. He clarified and redefined his first statement. That is how matters stood. At least TUPE could apply to a large number of staff.
Perhaps I am not reading the legislation correctly or perhaps words do not mean what they seem to mean. I want to draw the House's attention to the words of amendment No. 62. It is a Government amendment and has not yet been moved or spoken to. Inevitably, the initial part of our debate will be interrogative—asking questions, rather than making statements. The amendment says:
in relation to a person whose contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act"—
so the responsibility is fully that of Government legislation—
it shall be assumed that he was dismissed by the old authority concerned by reason of redundancy immediately before 1st April 1996 and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority.
What do those words mean and what effect will they have on people's rights under TUPE? I have a lawyer sitting not far from me. Am I right in saying that it is an attempt to frustrate contract? If so, is that the intention? If that is the intention and we accept the amendment, does it remove people's rights under TUPE? I am a layman wandering around in this world and I am trying to use the correct language. If people have been dismissed and re-employed, does it mean that a transfer has not taken place? Therefore, am I right in saying that TUPE will not apply?
If I am right, it is very serious and I find it hard to believe. It rubs against every assurance and all the good words that we had from Ministers in Committee and on Second Reading to the effect that there was no such intention. Do the words of that amendment in any way jeopardise the rights under TUPE which were accepted by Ministers and by counsel's opinion to the Welsh Local Government Management Board?

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: This is the core point of the debate. It was raised by me on Second Reading and an assurance was given. It was raised again in Committee on 17 May and again an assurance was given. To this day, we do not know the answer. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to refer to frustration of contract. It is nothing short of that and, in my respectful submission, it is a disgrace. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Mr. Rowlands: I am getting some confirmation about my interpretation from those who know more about this than I do. If my interpretation is correct, we should be deeply disturbed and there should be a tremendous row. I am half hoping that somehow Ministers will show that this is not the way to interpret the words and that there is no intention to remove the rights of staff who are to be


transferred. We will look later at the view of Mr. Elias and the Local Government Management Board. Ministers accepted in Committee that TUPE applied to a significant proportion of staff, although not to all. I fear that amendment No. 62 could be interpreted as an attempt to remove people's rights, because they are not being transferred but are being dismissed and reappointed. I do not want to build great edifices on a weak foundation. However, if I am right, we will feel a sense of betrayal, as will an enormous number of staff in local government.
Ministers have been very helpful in this regard. After Mr. Patrick Elias's opinion was referred to in Committee, we were quickly circulated with copies of his opinion. I suspect that it has been subsumed into the Local Government Management Board document "Reorganisation in Wales Human Resource Timetable". I am old-fashioned and I think that this sort of language—the language of modern industrial relations—should be outlawed by the Secretary of State. In fairness, it is not his document. I do not want to weary the House with the document, but it analyses in considerable detail the application of TUPE. It states that the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice believes that the directive applies to the public sector and covers transfers of undertaking such as those affected by local government reorganisation. It concludes by stating in paragraph 31:
Although it seems certain that as a result of this change TUPE will apply to local government reorganisation, the government has so far not formally accepted this, and the point is yet to be tested in the courts.
4.45 pm
I thought that in Committee the Government had accepted that certain groups of staff would be covered by TUPE. I accept that they qualified that by saying that it did not apply to all staff. That is shown by the second of the two references I made to our debates in Committee on clause 44. If nothing else, before the House proceeds much further, we must obtain confirmation from the Minister that TUPE does and will apply.
If any doubt is left, are we going to drive local government representatives and organisations to the enormously expensive business of applying for a judicial review? That is potentially very expensive and would use a great deal of council tax payers' money. Also, imagine the enormous cost of having to go to the European Court. We should not pass amendments which we do not understand and which would leave enormous challenges to be pursued and enormous costs incurred. We need a full explanation. In the spirit in which I introduced my remarks, I ask the Minister to clear this matter up.
My next point deals with who is covered by the amendment. Local government employs a fantastic number of people in different ways. The Minister was kind enough to provide me in a written answer with some figures on the employees in local authorities. Mid Glamorgan has 12,000 full-time employees and 9,000 part-time employees. Would just the administrative staff be covered or would everybody who works for the authority? How many employees, as opposed to administrative staff, would be affected and have their contract deemed to be terminated under amendment No. 62? How extensive is the process described in amendment No. 62?
I should like the Minister to clarify the position of direct labour organisations and direct service organisations. As a result of various Government changes during the 1980s,

they are semi-detached from Government and have to apply for contracts. That is a good layman's way of describing them. What happens to those employed by direct labour organisations and direct service organisations as a result of the reorganisation and what are their rights?
I hope that I have indicated—nothing more than that —that those are very important and serious questions to be answered. I am not willing to condemn the Government and I shall not say that they are doing anything nasty, dirty or reprehensible at the moment, but I want to know and try to understand exactly what they are asking us to accept in amendment No. 62. I find the whole world of local government staffing and its language fairly difficult to understand. I should be grateful if the Minister, who perhaps understands such things, would tell me what this marvellous quote from the report by the Local Government Management Board means:
The drawing up of staff structures will be a major task for the HAPS".
Who are the HAPS? The report continues:
and the management team, (and any other senior staff, including HR specialists".
Paragraph 41 says:
Current estimates are that some 90–95 per cent. of existing staff will transfer by order.
Is that the percentage that will be transferred if we accept amendment No. 62, or will anybody be transferred if it appears that a person was dismissed first and then reappointed?
Those are important issues and I hope that the Minister will explain it to hon. Members and, more importantly, to the thousands of people whose livelihood, jobs and security are threatened—perhaps that is a strong word. Anxiety has descended on them as a result of a piece of legislation which we shall probably pass by the end of the evening.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I wonder whether the Minister can help us in relation to the redundancy and severance terms and compensation arrangements for those employees of existing local authorities who are affected by reorganisation. I refer in particular to a letter dated 14 June, which reached its listed recipients only yesterday and, therefore, was made available to hon. Members after the debate had started. In my case, it was made available today. It is addressed, among others, to the Welsh Office, so I assume that the Secretary of State has received his copy by now. It is also addressed to the Shadow Staff Committee for Wales, as well as to district and county councils in England and Wales. I realise, of course, that it is a consultation document and that responses will be sought to it and that it may be amended in due course. However, one is bound to wonder why the document has not appeared with the draft regulations until now, bearing in mind the expressions of concern in Committee several weeks ago.

Mr. Morgan: And on Second Reading.

Mr. Carlile: And, indeed, on Second Reading, as the hon. Gentleman says. Will Ministers explain to the House why such an important matter, affecting so many of our constituents, appears not to have been resolved until this very late stage?
Paragraph 2 of the letter is headed:
The Local Government (Compensation For Redundancy) Regulations 1994".
Was the Welsh Office consulted on the matter; if so, what representations did it make on behalf of those loyal


servants of local government in Wales, many of whom, if they are in the 5 per cent. or so—a minimum estimate of those who will lose their jobs—will find it difficult to obtain jobs elsewhere, at least without a disturbing and upsetting uprooting of themselves and their families? Paragraph 2 states:
A maximum ceiling on payments is now proposed, based on a tariff which takes account of age and service.
When was the change decided which leads to the word "now" being included in the sentence? What is the reasoning behind the introduction of that maximum, which was obviously based on a change of mind by the Departments concerned? The paragraph continues:
Employees, aged 50 or over, who qualify for immediate payment of pension under the local government superannuation regulations will not now be able to benefit from these regulations.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has shown a great grasp of these issues, which is much better than that of many lawyers, who still find employment regulations a little strange and difficult to deal with and are a little perplexed by it all, apart from one or two experts, like the wife of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Why has it been decided, at least at the proposal stage, that employees who are entitled to benefit from the local government superannuation regulations should no longer be allowed so to do? How is it considered to be fair that that should be brought on employees of 50 or over, who will find it especially difficult to find at least commensurate new employment?
Part 3 of the draft regulations deals with the authorities affected by local government reorganisation and provides that, for a defined period of reorganisation, there will be a mandatory floor between the statutory minimum under employment protection legislation and the discretionary statutory maximum. That means that a limit is placed on the compensation arrangements available to those who are made redundant as a result of local government reorganisation.
We must examine what level of compensation is proposed for those who are made redundant as a result of reorganisation. We are told that those mandatory payments will accrue at the rate of 1.5 weeks' pay for each year of service between the ages of 23 and 41 and 2.5 weeks' pay for those between 42 and 49, but up to a maximum of 45 weeks' pay plus a generous extra half-week for 45 to 49-year-olds. As I understand it, that means that a 22-year-old clerk or housing officer working in a local authority affected by reorganisation will receive six weeks' pay if he has worked there for four years. As an estimate of loss, that is not merely stingy, but borders on being absurd, especially for local government officers working in rural Wales. I hope that my understanding of what is proposed is wrong, but that understanding is shared by local government officers who have received notice of the proposals in the past 24 hours.
Let us take another example at the extreme end: a 53-year-old chief planning officer, who has very little prospect of obtaining a job elsewhere, will receive a maximum of 45 weeks' pay as compensation. How does that compare with the compensation arrangements available in the private sector? It does not compare even with the limited compensation arrangements available to Members of the House who lose their seats.
Surely, at the very least, we should be able to give loyal and experienced local government officers compensation arrangements commensurate with what they would be able to obtain in a comparable area. I suggest to Ministers that one comparison would be what employees would obtain if they went to an ordinary court for breach of a similar contract of employment. Someone in as one-off a type of employment as the example I have given should be able to claim a year's notice at the least, yet under the proposals he would be given just over three quarters of a year's notice. It is not good enough for the Government to set such low standards in the public service compared with the private sector. There are examples of people who have been brought into the public service from the private sector and of enormous compensation payments being made.
The draft regulations provide:
during the period of reorganisation, local authorities are obliged to compensate employees below the level of the mandatory floor but … they retain discretion to pay up to the prescribed maximum".
There is great uncertainty among local government officers about what they will be able to recover in compensation for loss of office and consternation and genuine concern in Wales as a result of the draft regulations and the letter, not least because the information has been provided at such a late stage.
5 pm
Will Ministers at least confirm that they will adopt a flexible attitude during the consultation period and that they will examine seriously the "comparables" that can be found elsewhere so that we can ensure that fair compensation arrangements are available to some good officers who, unfortunately, are bound to lose their jobs? That is a matter of particular concern, as many of the 5 per cent. will be at a senior level. They will be in the older age group and are likely to be the people most affected by heavy family and mortgage commitments, which they may become unable to meet.

Mr. Llwyd: I have three specific questions to ask. First, amendment No. 62 refers to "any other enactment". What does that mean? Am I right in thinking that it is a reference to TUPE regulations; or is it a reference to another enactment? It is important that the meaning of those words is made clear today.
Secondly, will there be an entitlement to receive notice of termination of employment? The Minister will no doubt realise why I ask that, and it is important that we receive an answer.
Thirdly, in connection with the "enactment" to which I have already referred, I draw the Minister's attention to section 5 of the TUPE regulations. Am I right in thinking that any contract which would otherwise terminate shall be transferred to the new authority by virtue of those regulations? Those three core questions deserve to be answered, not only for our sake but for that of the tens of thousands of people in Wales who have, alas, been considering the passage of the Bill with a less than enthusiastic gaze in the past few months.
Part of the reason for their lack of enthusiasm has been that matters so vital to them have had to be raised time and time again. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), on Second Reading I mentioned TUPE and the frustration of contract and was told that the issues would be dealt with. Not having been satisfied in any shape or form, I raised


them again in Committee on 17 May, when assurances were again given. If Government assurances are to mean anything, they must be fulfilled. That is a painfully obvious point. I believe that these issues, at the very least, should be cleared up today so that we can give accurate reports to the people of Wales.
As a first principle, I do not accept that the provisions now being discussed by the English Staff Commission should apply to Wales. Clearly, we are seeking the most appropriate arrangements for employees in Wales, and local government in Wales will of course differ from that in England in two key respects. First, reorganisation in Wales, unlike reorganisation in England, will not be phased but is to take place on one specific date. Therefore, the opportunity for staff to seek other employment in local government is diminished. Secondly, and just as important, local authorities are the major employers in many parts of Wales and, given the economic circumstances of the region —or the country—it might be difficult for staff who lose their jobs as a result of reorganisation to obtain further employment.
I note that the Local. Government (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1993 give authorities the power to pay at their discretion up to 66 weeks' severance pay—less, of course, any redundancy payment to which the employee would be entitled under existing statutory and local government legislation. Those regulations were made in the wake of the Court of Appeal decision in the case of North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v. Allsop. They were not drawn up as a response to local government reorganisation, and I believe that they would be inappropriate in this instance.
Like many other hon. Members, I am especially concerned about employees aged between 40 and 49 or 50 who may be casualties of this reorganisation and who will doubtless find it very difficult to obtain commensurate jobs elsewhere. Compensation arrangements for reorganisation should not apply only in respect of redundancies which take place on 31 March 1996. I believe that they should operate for a period of, say, a year or 18 months before and after reorganisation. That would provide an incentive for staff who wish to take early retirement and make way for employees who would otherwise be made redundant on vesting day. It would be only right and fair if that were to happen. Of course, reorganisation compensation should be paid only if redundancy is due specifically to the creation of the new authorities. In the case of other redundancies or early retirements, I believe that the usual arrangements should apply.
I have already asked questions about TUPE—questions which were also eloquently posed this evening by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Ministers are no doubt aware of last week's landmark decision in the European Court of Justice, and I sincerely trust that the Government will not have to be hauled again by their hair through the courts because of their stubbornness and disrespect for the rights of ordinary working people. I am sure that their mandarins are now considering their obligations in the light of that decision, and I respectfully suggest that TUPE will most definitely apply to everyone involved in this transfer. Indeed, I would go further and say that, fortunately for me, that was also my opinion on 17 May—an opinion I still hold—when I declared that the Government were intent on acting illegally and that EC directive 75/129 on employment provisions, which was later amended by another directive, came into force under

the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. As Ministers are aware, the method proposed under that Act for calculating redundancy payments is abundantly clear.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on some information that I have just received? I have just been told by a senior local government officer that it is now understood that older officers—those over 49 years of age —will not receive the compensation that I outlined. By reason of their age, they will be given less. I understand that in my example a 53-year-old local government officer in Wales will be able to recover only 26 weeks pay under the proposed regulations.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree that that is an appalling scenario, and I trust that it will prove to be faulty in due course. I am sure that the interpretation is right, but it is absolutely unfair and we must examine it carefully.
The 1993 Act details some ways of avoiding dismissals, reducing the number of employees to be dismissed and mitigating the consequences of dismissals. Those matters are important. I have already referred to the TUPE regulations. Once again, I invite the Secretary of State and Ministers to respond to that point. As for the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), if that is the correct interpretation, it is an appalling situation.
There is, I regret to say, continued uncertainty and there are no hard facts about the Secretary of State's commitment to a 95 per cent. staff transfer level. We have heard references to the opinion of Mr. Elias QC. I am still in the dark about that; what is worse—and more important —many thousands of people in local government in Wales are also in the dark. May I ask the Minister how that staff transfer level was initially derived, measured or compiled? How will that level of transfer be achieved if all the staff seeking continued local government employment are not transferred by order on 31 March 1996? The Government need to be precise and clear at this stage or they will face the continuing accusation of window dressing for political and pressure effect, rather than dealing with the substance of this vital issue.
I have already referred to the TUPE regulations. The European acquired rights directive was applied in the European court case. However much Ministers may seek to bury their heads in the sand, we are part of the European Union and, accordingly, we are bound by that directive and the court's decision. I hope, therefore, that in the next few days—not months, as we have seen with the tabling of amendments—we might have some pertinent references to that case and possibly some early and urgent amendments to the way in which the Government are thinking about the matter.
I respectfully remind Ministers that the objective of the European acquired rights directive is twofold: first, there is a need to secure appropriate posts in the new councils for all staff who wish to continue in local government employment; secondly, there is a need to protect both the global level and the important position of local government employment in the socioeconomic life of Wales.
I shall ask the Minister some further questions. I hope —perhaps I am hoping against hope—that he will answer them because we need details; otherwise, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said yesterday, the process of scrutiny is a sham. If it is a sham, we are


letting the people of Wales down. I believe that we are letting them down anyway because the Bill is badly flawed. We need clear indications from the Government on staff transfer arrangements, TUPE and compensation arrangements for Welsh employees.
Reference has been made to frustration of contract. We need details on that today. We also need the details of detriment packages for loss of earnings and so on. Undoubtedly, the Minister will refer to the letter that was sent out on 14 June. I make no apology for not having read it. It is my good fortune that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery handed me a copy a few moments ago. I have not evaluated the covering letter, and I make no apology for that. The letter should have been made available at a much earlier stage than the Report stage of such an important Bill.
To say that the situation is disappointing is not strong enough; I am very disappointed—it is a shambolic way to run any Department. The Department of the Environment is writing letters when the Welsh Office is supposed to be dealing with the matter before the House. Why did the Welsh Office not request the information earlier? Why were hon. Members not made fully aware of the consultation process before now? If I am corrected by the Minister at any stage, I make no apology for that. I am in blissful ignorance of the provisions. It is unfortunate that those of us who spent six weeks in Committee were not even accorded the decency of being allowed to know what consultation was going on behind closed doors. This is supposed to be the Government of open government, but we have yet another example of anything but open government. It is a shambolic experience and I am disgusted by it all.
5.15 pm
There are compensation provisions. We are all being invited to take part in the process known as consultation, which may or may not turn out to be true consultation. In the past, I have been less than happy about the standard of comprehension by Ministers and, indeed, the extent to which they are prepared to listen during the consultation process. However, for what it is worth, I will throw my hat into the consultation ring. As the Welsh changes will happen on the same day, and as the average wage for local government employees in Wales is low, it is important that we are given firm indications of the direction in which we are travelling. I have referred to detriment and frustration of contract. Once again, I invite the Minister to respond fully to those points.
I shall put forward one or two views which I hope will be taken into account in the so-called consultation process. I believe that there should be a statutory non-discretionary scheme, adopting the principles of the 1986 regulations but with improvement for employees over 50 and between 45 and 50. Employees aged 50 and over who are so entitled should receive an immediate pension with maximum added years and a maximum severance payment of at least 52 weeks' pay. A maximum of 82 weeks' pay should be made to those not entitled to an immediate pension. Those aged 45 should have their pension frozen and brought into payment at the age of 50 with maximum added years and a minimum severance payment of up to 82 weeks' pay. The calculation of redundancy payments should be based on an actual week's pay or any multiple of that.
Nothing short of a full reply to those detailed points will allay the fears that I have for my constituents and for all local government employees in Wales. They deserve to be told where they are going. They are energetic and they went into the service with the best possible intentions. Some of them went through the trauma of the 1972–74 changes and are now to be subjected to this reorganisation. People in Dolgellau who have young families, mortgages and so on are desperately worried about their future. I cannot stand idly by and tell them, "Yes, I raised it on Second Reading and I am to be given a reply" or "Yes, I raised it in Committee and I am to be given a reply." We are now on Report: for heaven's sake, will the Minister please reply?
In conclusion, I refer briefly to the assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State at a conference in Llandudno on 7 January, to which reference has been made. He said then that he would urge that Welsh provision should be tailor made to meet the needs of organisations in Wales. I am asking him to deliver on that undertaking.

Mr. Peter Hain: The Minister will be aware—he will contradict me if I am wrong—that Lliw Valley borough council is the only example of a borough authority that will be split after the change to the new unitary authorities. As such, it is distinct from a county which will—and does—supply services to a range of residents in different borough authorities. When staff are transferred from counties to new unitary authorities, therefore, they will be in a slightly different position from those in a borough authority.
A number of questions were raised by the Under-Secretary of State's answer in Committee when he said, referring to advice received by the Local Government Management Board, that
senior and central administrative staff in split authorities, such as counties, are less likely to be protected than similar staff in merged authorities, such as most district councils.
He continued:
If that advice is correct, it emphasises the importance of devising staff transfer arrangements that, as far as possible, provide equality of treatment for all staff."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 May 1994; c. 540.]
It is significant that in that brief but highly potent statement the Under-Secretary of State referred only to a split county authority, not to the only example of a split district council that I can think of in the reorganization—Lliw Valley district council.
Can the Minister reassure my constituents and those people working in Lliw valley—both that part served by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) and the upper Lliw valley, which I represent? I imagine that a teacher working in a school in Godrergraig, which is to be transferred into the new Neath and Port Talbot unitary authority, will also be transferred to that authority, so there will be no problem. What about a park attendant employed in Pontardawe, let us say? He or she will also be transferred to the new unitary authority, which is Neath and Port Talbot.
What will happen to members of staff in Lliw valley who straddle the divide? They may be housing officials—or work in leisure, recreation or some other council department—who do not have a location on either side of the border. Where would they be transferred and would their rights be fully protected?
It is not clear whether all existing employment rights will be protected consequent upon transfer to the new


unitary authorities. That is a general point. Even though the Government are tidying up the arrangements through these amendments, they do not seem to guarantee that all existing employment rights will be protected as a general principle. But it is a particular problem in the schizophrenic situation that I have mentioned, where some employees of Lliw Valley are in the anomalous position of serving both sides of the border and it is not clear to which authority they will be transferred—Neath and Port Talbot or Swansea. Will their redundancy, contracts of employment, pay, salary and conditions all be protected?
It is very important for the Minister to give some serious reassurance that the Bill protects the rights of those individuals who are caught between the two authorities. It is not clear to me that the Bill as drafted, or as it might be changed by these amendments, would give them that protection. They would value a positive response from the Minister in that respect.

Sir Wyn Roberts: This is indeed an important batch of amendments. Let me assure the House at the outset that we do not expect the reorganisation to lead to a large reduction in the number of staff. We hope to secure the necessary reductions in staffing levels by voluntary redundancies. It should, therefore, be possible to avoid any compulsory redundancies on 31 March 1996, but the House will appreciate that I cannot give a guarantee on that matter, since a great deal depends on the decisions of the new authorities and members of staff.
Volunteers for redundancy could be sought in the summer and autumn of 1995, but only from among those staff whose jobs are changing or disappearing as a result of the reorganisation. Staff whose jobs are not changing, such as teachers, care assistants and so forth, will be transferred, so the question of redundancies and compensation will not arise for them.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced on Tuesday the Government's proposals for the severance payments that authorities could make and hon. Members have referred to them. We are proposing that staff under the age of 50 could qualify for a redundancy payment of up to 66 weeks' pay, depending on age and length of service. It would be up to the authorities, if they wished, to make a payment at the highest permissible level, but we propose that they should not be allowed to go below a minimum floor, which will apply for reorganisation-related redundancies occurring in the calendar year 1996. That is what we are consulting on and not the document of November 1993, to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred.
The proposed local government redundancy compensation payments do not cover people beyond the age of 50 because staff over that age can qualify for immediate payment of pension. Staff under the age of 50 cannot do so and it is appropriate, therefore, for the higher redundancy payments to be made to them. They are higher. I assure the House that both the floor of payment and the maximum payments will be considerably better than entitlement, in the form of the statutory minimum under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
The transfer arrangements would be as follows. First, there would be a competition for chief executive and chief officer posts. I would expect that process to be completed by the end of summer 1995. Staff whose jobs were not changing would be identified and listed in draft transfer

orders, which would be published no later than the end of November 1995. Any other staff with the right of transfer, under TUPE, would be included in supplementary transfer orders.
Volunteers for redundancy would be sought from the remaining staff. Those who did not volunteer presumably would wish to remain with local government and would be seeking a post in a new authority. The new authorities would have at least until the end of March to complete their procedures for recruiting staff to the new posts that they would be creating.
We hope that sufficient volunteers for redundancy would come forward so as to avoid the need for any compulsory redundancies on 31 March 1996. But if that were not the case, some redundancy notices may need to be served before reorganisation. If such notices had not expired by 31 March 1996, it would be possible to transfer the staff concerned to serve out their notice in a new authority.
Perhaps this is the point at which to emphasise that clause 53(4) provides for new authorities to take over the contractual responsibilities of the old authorities. The arrangements that I have described would maximise certainty for staff at the earliest possible stage in each case, and would ensure that the vast majority of staff from counties and districts transferred to the new authorities receive equal treatment.
5.30 pm
The Opposition amendments would do none of those things. Apart from the staff who have the right to transfer under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, there would be no means to transfer staff from the old authorities to the new. The transfer orders in clause 42 would set out clearly to which authority an individual had been transferred, and I think that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). The amendments would leave industrial tribunals as the only means of securing certainty in cases of doubt, and of course I cannot commend them to the House.
I want to deal with the Government amendments.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister is quite correct in saying that the emphasis of new clause 12 is on the preserved or acquired right to be able to take a case of unfair or constructive dismissal to an industrial tribunal. Is he then commending the Government's legislation? Is he also guaranteeing that there will be continued rights to sue in an industrial tribunal, regardless of whether one is suing an old or a new authority? Would that be correct even if the case eventually only gets to an industrial tribunal after 1 April 1996, when there will be no old authorities, even if it is one of those which is being sued?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I will come to precisely that point as I deal with Government amendments Nos. 62 to 64.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am just going to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). The hon. Gentleman, referring to clause 44, said that it shall be assumed that a person was dismissed "by reason of redundancy" and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority. Those words bring with them the requirement to consult representatives of staff, to give notice and so on.
In that case, we are talking about people who are not transferred by order and who are in the employment of existing authorities. I shall have more to say about the points made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney in a few moments;
Government amendments Nos. 62 to 65 give effect to the undertaking which my right hon. Friend made to the House on Second Reading to reassure staff that they will have full rights under employment protection legislation, including rights to consultation with representatives of staff and trade unions about prospective redundancies and notice of redundancy.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am dealing with this set of amendments so the House can understand their full scope. Clause 44 applies only to staff who lose their jobs at the point of reorganisation. We hope to secure the necessary reductions in staffing levels by voluntary redundancies, so it would be possible to avoid compulsory redundancies on 31 March. It is not possible to give an assurance on that point.
Government amendment No. 62 was somehow misunderstood by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. It mentions the relevant employment protection provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. These are concerned primarily with redundancies, which is precisely the situation dealt with by clause 44.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing matters with the right of transfer which staff might have under the TUPE regulations. Such staff are implicitly recognised in the wording of subsection (IA)(b) of the amendment, which states that
a contract of employment is transferred—(i) to a new principal council, if it is treated by any provision made by this Act, or by or under any other enactment, as continued in force with that council".
In other words, staff transferred under TUPE will not be covered by clause 44 because they will be transferred. The provisions of the Bill cannot override the requirement of European legislation, such as the TUPE regulations, which implement the acquired rights directive.

Mr. Rowlands: I feel out of my depth and I am willing to accept the ministerial word on the matter. Is it the ministerial word that nothing in the amendment undermines the rights of staff under TUPE in the event of reorganisation? I would appreciate it if the Minister could give that categoric assurance.

Sir Wyn Roberts: TUPE can apply, but it depends on the circumstances of the individual case and I am happy to reaffirm that now. There is no attempt to undermine that directive in any sense.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: Government amendment No. 66 plugs a gap which we have identified in clause 45.

Mr. Morgan: One matter needs to be cleared up. If I understood correctly what the Minister said before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, he was referring to the emphasis

which the Government were placing on facilitating the transfer of staff with all their acquired rights under TUPE from the old authorities to the new. He said that this was in the form of a guarantee that the staff will be transferred. The problem is that people can lose rights while they are being transferred. For instance, they may find that they were moving from full-time to part-time work, which would normally give them the right to compensation for detriment. That could take place under TUPE or under old-fashioned UK employment law.
The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned not only the right to sue for compensation and to be entitled to a redundancy package because a person has lost his job, but the substantial deterioration in terms and conditions, such as a loss of hours. Is he covering that point of detriment as well?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have covered the transfer of staff from one authority to another. I shall again remind the hon. Gentleman of clause 53(4), which states:
Anything done by or in relation to an old authority before 1st April 1996 … shall … have effect as if done by or in relation to the successor authority.
In other words, the liabilities of old authorities transfer under clause 54 to the appropriate new authorities. Clause 44(2) already recognises that such liabilities will be transferred to new authorities. There will not, therefore, be the change which the hon. Gentleman anticipates. If a change resulting in detriment to an individual occurs, the new authority will be as responsible as the old authority might have been.

Mr. Morgan: I am finding some comfort in what the Minister is saying, except for one point—he is overselling the matter to the House. Is he implying that clause 44, as amended by Government amendment No. 62, confers rights to transfer, without loss of acquired rights under employment law? We understand that it is neutral on that point, permitting that to occur without debarring it. It does not confer it as a matter of right. The Minister is leaving the clause in a form whereby staff would have to find out how the right to transfer without losing their acquired rights will be enforced. The right is not conferred by clauses 42 to 45, which pertain to the transfer of staff from the old authorities. It would be misleading to the House and the 140,000 staff who could, in theory, be affected if he tried to imply that he is conferring something on them when, in reality, he is permitting, in a neutral manner, another form of regulation, which will have to come back to the House in another form, to confer that right. Is not the clause simply neutral on that point?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is leading us down the wrong garden path. He forgets that all the other employment legislation, for example on redundancies and transfers, comes into play. The clause relates only to local government reorganisation in Wales and the specific transfers of staff that will be needed between authorities. The hon. Gentleman should remember that other employment legislation is still effective.
Government amendment No. 66 plugs a gap which we have identified in clause 45. For example, an individual on a fixed-term contract with an old authority could have already secured a job by competition in one of the new authorities, yet could have claimed damages for loss of office under his existing contract. The House will agree that that would not be an appropriate use of public funds.


Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are unnecessary.

Mr. Morgan: Before the Minister leaves Government amendment No. 66, may I ask him when he expects to be able to produce the regulations? What areas are they intended to cover? What is the expected timing for producing the regulations, which appear to qualify the right conferred by the rest of the clause? Can he produce fairly soon a list of the headings which those regulations will cover, as it may take a year or so before the Minister produces the regulations themselves? It is a bare-bones explanation simply to say that those regulations will exclude the effect of the clause without saying how soon we may know the range of subjects to be covered under those headings? Can the Minister give us some information on that front?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not think that I can give information on the timing of the regulations at this stage. Obviously, they flow from the passage of the Bill and the events that will follow, with which the hon. Gentleman is, by now, as familiar—if not more so—than I am.

Mr. Rowlands: rose—

Mr. Llwyd: rose—

Sir Wyn Roberts: I assure the House that anyone who is entitled to a redundancy payment as a result of the reorganisation should receive it. I appreciate the fact that some of the amendments have been probing, but I believe that the provisions in the Government amendments are far superior—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I want no sub-committees here, please.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The Government amendments are far superior to the amendments put forward by the Opposition, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition amendments and accept the Government amendments.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister of State began by saying that he hoped that the clause would be based on the principle of volunteers for redundancy, which would solve most of the problems. The heartfelt way in which he said it may have been based on the fact that he has volunteered for redundancy from his office. This may be his last evening at the Dispatch Box, as reshuffles gather pace.

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself with my future as much as that of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has nominated the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but will back the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). What on earth has the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) done to him?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that that will be regarded as a rhetorical question. It has nothing to do with the subject under consideration.

Mr. Morgan: I am extremely pleased to have your diktat on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall not cross swords with you.
Later this evening, we shall be in a position to wish the Minister of State well in his retirement and return to angling, wangling and poetry.

Mr. Llwyd: Before the hon. Gentleman says farewell to the Minister, does he share my concern that, of the five specific, extremely important points that I put to him at the beginning of the debate, not one has been answered? Does he agree that that is unacceptable and that something deceitful may be going on? Why are not we entitled to a reply?

Mr. Morgan: That is the problem we are experiencing. These are complex matters. They are almost arcane when we try to put them into debating points, but they are life-and-death matters to the 140,000 people who work in local government. We are trying to bring the matter to life in the House as it will undoubtedly be brought home to the staff directly affected by it. That is why those of us who, unlike the Minister of State, intend to continue to represent Welsh communities where local government is an important source of employment are disappointed. I wish to take nothing away from the Minister's popularity in the House, which will doubtless be greatly enhanced by the identity of his successor once it is known.

Mr. Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend try to extract from the Minister answers to two questions regarding the position of direct labour organisations and direct service organisations? I put specific questions which, unfortunately, perhaps due to an oversight on his part, the Minister did not answer. That was why I wanted to intervene.

Mr. Morgan: He is the Minister for oversight in the Welsh Office, so I am not sure whether I can persuade him to rise to the Dispatch Box once again to discuss DLOs and DSOs. Many of those 140,000 people are in DLOs and DSOs and their position is exceptional. Given the Minister's absence of comment on that issue in answer to specific questions, I am none the wiser on how DLOs' and DSOs' continued acquired rights will be covered. We do not want the Minister of State's successor to be hauled before the European Court for sins of omission because the Minister has failed to clarify the matter or give an undertaking that, by the time the Bill returns to the other place, it will be cleared up.
After all—I return briefly to my opening remarks—this is a displaced debate. This is the debate that we should have had in Committee a month ago. The debate that may take place in 10 days' time in the other place should have taken place tonight on Report, with us having had the two bites at the cherry which issues that are so complex and of such life and death importance to the bread and butter earnings of the 140,000 staff in local government in Wales deserve. Those staff should have the benefit of the two bites at the cherry. They will want to know what is said. Ministers also need to be able to take on board the comments that are made tonight.
If the Minister is stumped on the issue of the DSOs and DLOs, that is fair enough. We expect him to be stumped from time to time, as all Ministers are—and he no less and no more than other Ministers. If the debate had taken place in Committee, no doubt the matter would have been clarified by the time that it came to Report. However, on Report, the Minister may be stumped and when the Bill goes to the other place it will be the last opportunity for any clarification. Instead of there being a month between Committee and Report stages, we shall probably have only a week and a half before the Bill is finally dealt with in the other place.
We have to meet our constituents in our surgeries or deputations of local government officers. They have every right to expect answers from us. They will say, "We vote for you; damn well find out from those people in Westminster." The chances of our finding out the answers to their questions have been much reduced by the way in which the debate, which should have taken a place a month ago in Committee, has had to take place tonight. It is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
We still do not know to what extent the TUPE regulations will be incorporated and I do not think that we are any the wiser as to whether the Government have made any attempt to take on board last week's European Court of Justice ruling. Has that been incorporated into Government amendment No. 62, or is that a matter that they will now study, going back to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel—who no doubt will be extremely pleased to see them—and saying, "By the time the Bill goes to the other place, we must ensure that this amendment, covering these redundancies and transfer rights, will be incorporated", and further amendments will be made in the Bill's final stages in 10 days' time? That is not satisfactory.
If the Minister will not say anything about DLOs and DSOs or any of the other matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I must say that there is no doubt that the interference by the Department of the Environment—and perhaps also the Treasury—in that issue has been exceedingly unhelpful. The Secretary of State admitted earlier—something that he obviously did not know when he made his promise at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading—that the Department of the Environment and the Treasury would interfere. He did not know it at the time he made his promise; otherwise, he probably would not have made that promise. He then found out that the Department of the Environment and the Treasury are the big boys in this issue and that he is only the tea boy, and that, unfortunately, he was prevented from doing something that he thought that he had the freedom to do when he promised that this matter would be clarified and sorted out in amendments that would be proposed in Committee in May. Unfortunately, he was prevented from doing that and now the Department of the Environment conditions in England, which are entirely different, will apply.
Wales is a far more rural area than England. People who are displaced in local government in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy or of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) cannot obtain other jobs without moving house. That will not be the case in a more urbanised area such as England.
At all times in England there will be a continual flow of different stages of reorganisation, which will not be the case in Wales. We are having the big bang in Wales. It will create an enormous amount of simultaneous confusion and changes in the supply and demand of local government staff, which is not a matter about which the Department of the Environment has to worry. As a result, I have to tell my colleagues that I intend to divide the House on that issue.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 160.

Division No. 262]
[5.53


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Kirkwood, Archy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Lewis, Terry


Armstrong, Hilary
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
McCartney, Ian


Austin-Walker, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Madden, Max


Barnes, Harry
Mahon, Alice


Bayley, Hugh
Martlew, Eric


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Michael, Alun


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Betts, Clive
Morgan, Rhodri


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Mullin, Chris


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Murphy, Paul


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
O'Brien, Michael (N W?kshire)


Corbett, Robin
O'Hara, Edward


Cousins, Jim
Olner, William


Dalyell, Tam
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Pike, Peter L.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Dowd, Jim
Raynsford, Nick


Eagle, Ms Angela
Rendel, David


Etherington, Bill
Rowlands, Ted


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Spearing, Nigel


Fyfe, Maria
Spellar, John


Galloway, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Garrett, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wareing, Robert N


Hain, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Hanson, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Harvey, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw?n W)


Hoyle, Doug
Winnick, David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Jowell, Tessa
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bates, Michael
Dunn, Bob


Batiste, Spencer
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bowis, John
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
Gallie, Phil


Brazier, Julian
Gardiner, Sir George


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gillan, Cheryl


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Sir Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clappison, James
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawksley, Warren


Coe, Sebastian
Hayes, Jerry


Congdon, David
Heald, Oliver


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael






Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat?rd-on-A)
Richards, Rod


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kilfedder, Sir James
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sproat, Iain


Knapman, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stephen, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stern, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sweeney, Walter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sykes, John


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lightbown, David
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Luff, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tracey, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Trend, Michael


Mans, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marland, Paul
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waterson, Nigel


Mates, Michael
Watts, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wells, Bowen


Merchant, Piers
Whittingdale, John


Mills, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Willetts, David


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Nicholson, David (Taunton)



Page, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Paice, James
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Patnick, Irvine
Mr. Andrew MacKay.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 17

GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING

?After section 29 of the planning Act insert—
29A.—(1) This section shall apply only to Wales.

(2) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Local Planning Authorities concerned, by order designate areas in respect of which the Local Planning Authorities, as and when directed by the Secretary of State, are jointly to prepare guidance for the planning of land-use, transport, economic development and the environment, within those areas.

(3) The timescale for the preparation of such guidance shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".' —[Mr. Morgan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to the absence of any guarantees in the Bill for the provision of what might be described as strategic planning, including any equivalent to the powers which we expect to be included in the English local government measure and which have already been included in the Scottish one.
The planning subjects that we want the Secretary of State to instruct the incoming unitary authorities to cover jointly are land use, transportation, economic development and the environment. We understand that the new clause

meets with the approval of various lobbying bodies with a specialist interest in planning issues, in both rural and urban Wales. The Council for the Protection of Rural Wales is broadly in favour of its thrust because it understands the problems that might arise if we sub-divide the planning of all sorts of issues—including wind farms, which happen to be the burning issue of the moment in rural Wales.
There are many other issues, including the way in which rural Wales—previously a Cinderella area but now rapidly expanding—handles the subject of land use and the change in the environment. Land consisting virtually entirely of national park or areas of outstanding natural beauty is also extremely attractive to the new society into which we are moving, in which people's choice of housing is not necessarily determined by economic activity. Many people now retire at 50 or decide to go for the good life by leaving London and their careers because they think that their children would be better off brought up in a country environment. Those sorts of conflicts need to be resolved.
In urban Wales there is a desperate desire to resolve the question of where the major employment sites will be. A site may be in one unitary authority area, but it may primarily serve a labour market in an adjoining area. Such issues could be more easily resolved if there were a grouping of special subjects involving two, three or more unitary authorities. That would be for the Secretary of State of the day to decide, in consultation with the unitary authorities. They would then have instructions from the Secretary of State to prepare strategic plans on this, that or the other issue, such as the four listed in the new clause —land use, transportation, economic development and the environment.
The Secretary of State will know that this is in no sense an attempt to reconstruct the counties in some sort of shadowy form over the next 20 years. It is very much in the spirit of the provision in the Scottish local government plans for covering strategic planning against the background of the sub-division of Scotland into smaller, single-tier, most-purpose authorities.
We are going through the same process in Wales, but there is a major difference between Wales and Scotland, and the Secretary of State has never justified it. Why is it that his counterpart in Scotland thinks that there is a continuing need for strategic planning to be carried out in agreement between himself and the Scottish local authorities? We are looking for something similar in Wales. We have tabled new clause 17 in that spirit and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the new clause and, in particular, of the part concerned with preparing guidance for the planning of land use.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs conducted a detailed study of rural housing in Wales and considered the extent to which existing local authorities were or were not complying with existing local and structural plans.
One of the great problems arises from the fact that the Government have decided to ensure that all district councils prepare new local plans—a process that is now well on course. I am delighted that, at last, after many years, the Government have insisted that those new development plans are drawn up. The great difficulty is that now new plans have to be drawn up by the new unitary authorities, so at the very time when local authorities


which have in the past resisted drawing up local plans are busy doing exactly that, the Government have introduced a Bill which will mean that they will have to draw up, on the basis of new boundaries, entirely different plans consisting of two parts—one a strategic plan and the other setting out the details of what is intended for public consultation.
The difficulty that that poses for the Welsh Office and for the Government is very clear: to what extent will they intervene in the internal affairs of a local authority when that local authority plainly does not follow Government guidelines?
When we examined the situation in rural Wales, we came across a few district councils that regarded Welsh Office interference in their affairs as extremely unwelcome and considered that the policy planning guidelines were not there to be acceded to. We questioned officials from the Welsh Office on this matter, particularly in relation to Dinefwr borough council. An answer given by Mr. Gregory in his evidence to the Select Committee on 16 June 1993 was extremely helpful in pointing out the Government's position when the draft plan is being prepared by the local authority—and, in view of the Government's proposals, the new unitary authorities.
I am anxious to explore with the Minister the question that arises from Mr. Gregory's sentence. I realise that that gentleman has moved on to greener pastures and I congratulate him on his move to the Department of Health. At column 195 of the Select Committee report, he said in relation to the way in which draft local plans are being drawn up by district councils:
Our practice is to ask the authority to explain why it is appropriate in these circumstances, since it does not appear to be, and if the authority cannot explain it, and where personal canvassing is the only reason, it is very difficult for them to do so, then either the authority changes the boundary or we enforce a change.".
6.15 pm
What interests me in relation to the Government's proposal is that, when the chief planning officer for the borough of Dinefwr gave evidence in his letter of 6 July 1993, he identified 14 villages within that borough where the local planning committee had decided to overrule the officers' recommendations regarding significant parcels of land that would now be included in the draft local plan for housing development.
Mr. Gregory said that, if the authority continued to proceed in a certain direction, the Welsh Office could be entitled to or could decide to enforce a change. I am interested in the relationship between the new unitary authorities with a new plan and the power of the Welsh Office to enforce that change.
If the local unitary authority is to have the power to determine planning applications with no reference to the county structure plan, will the Welsh Office increase its intervention and its scrutiny of planning in Wales to ensure a consistency across the Principality that plainly did not exist in recent times, as the Select Committee inquiry demonstrated?
The new clause represents an attempt to set up a system which replaces the council city structure plan—which will not exist because the counties will not exist—with a

system of checks and balances to ensure some consistency across wider parts of Wales rather than simply within the local authority area.
A fundamental unfairness exists whereby some individuals can get planning permission within a local authority area, entirely against both the local plan and the structural plan, whereas other individuals are unable to get such permission. The clause seeks to address that fundamental issue by trying to establish a system that would help the Welsh Office to avoid the additional burden that any Government Department would attempt to avoid. The clause attempts to ensure that there is fairness within Wales—fairness which, as the Minister knows, did not exist in 1991 when the Select Committee considered the subject in detail.
Is the Minister confident that, under the proposed changes, all the new unitary authorities will have deposited both parts of the new plan by the end of 1996— I refer not to the plans that they have been drawing up but to the new plans—so that there will be some consistency? Secondly, to what extent may we be sure that the Welsh Office will no longer need to watch carefully what each unitary authority is doing in planning terms because checks will exist within them?
It is over-optimistic of the Welsh Office to assume that, if the new clause is rejected, sufficient powers will not only exist but will be used by the Welsh Office to ensure consistency throughout the Principality. We need a replacement for the county structure plan. To rely on the new plans drawn up by district councils without a county structure plan to ensure a fair system throughout Wales will be to create a major problem.
Let me use the analogy of voluntary arrangements among Welsh district councils with regard to waste disposal. The Minister and I spent many happy hours in the Select Committee considering that vexed issue, which took us into consideration of leachate, methane gas and other environmental problems. We also spent many happy hours investigating those problems in situ in different parts of the Principality.
In that instance, there was tremendous inconsistency in the regulation of waste disposal as between district councils. Finally, voluntary agreement was reached between three sets of Welsh district councils, to try to establish a degree of consistency. The difficulties were legendary. I will not describe all 286 landfill sites in Wales that existed in 1987. The majority of district councils were superb in the way that they performed their duties. But some were not. When the voluntary groups existed, certain district councils within them were reluctant to accept from an officer financed by them all instructions as to the action that they should take. I visited some landfill sites and saw leachate entering neighbouring streams; the prosecuting authorities took companies to court and those firms were fined for endangering the life forms in rivers polluted by leachate from tips.
Plainly, the voluntary system did not work. That point applies equally to the provision before us. The Welsh Office needs to play a far more proactive role in carefully examining draft local plans and to use its powers to direct -local authorities not to permit development outside village boundaries contrary to planning guidelines.
I cite the example of policy planning guidance note 7 and annexe E, in respect of bungalows and other homes for retirement farmers in Wales. At present, the Select


Committee is devising a questionnaire that will be sent to every Welsh district council asking for details of contraventions of that planning guidance.
We already know that since January 1992, in Montgomery district council, three retired farmers have had new homes built on land that they owned. Will the Welsh Office force those farmers to demolish those properties because they are in direct contravention of the Welsh Office PPG? If so—and I appreciate that Montgomery might not survive—the new clause may not be necessary. If it is the Secretary of State's purpose, after the Bill receives Royal Assent, quickly to move in, enforce his powers and direct those few miscreants in Wales to demolish their properties, new clause 17 may be unnecessary. If, however, the Secretary of State allows his PPGs to be flouted as they occasionally are in different areas, the new clause will be necessary to protect people from renegade local planning committee members who give permission as a result of personal considerations being uppermost in their minds.
I can do no better than to refer again to the clear message given in many of the local government commissioners' reports—that although only a small percentage of Welsh district councils are guilty of that practice, their actions bring the whole planning system into disrepute. The commissioners' 1991–92 report stated:
One council granted consent for some 48 per cent. of those applications, which were significant departures from the council's own approved policy.
One report on a complaint against the council in question observed:
Such a situation can only reflect adversely on the council's credibility as a planning authority.
The Minister has kindly addressed that issue, and I am sure that he will do so again. However, it is vital that the Welsh Office takes a far more interactive and active role in ensuring that planning policy guidance is followed consistently across Wales, so that when draft local plans are drawn up they are closely scrutinised and development approval for a local planning authority member's land contrary to the recommendations of the local authority's own officers will not be tolerated.
The balance between local democracy and central Government is critical. I hope that the Government will either use their powers to ensure consistency or put in place a system to replace the county structure plan as a check, if it happens that the local development plan that the Bill proposes is ineffective. If the new clause is accepted, the Welsh Office will be let off the hook and local democracy will be able to remain paramount. But I am sure, as the Minister is aware, that the people of Wales are not happy with the situation whereby certain councils have been able to give planning permissions without close reference to the law, the statutes and policy planning guidelines. It gives me great pleasure to support the new clause.

Mr. Llwyd: I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. It has been a somewhat sobering experience over the past few months to undertake the research and investigation to which the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) referred. There were quite shocking instances of breaches of planning regulations, which, apparently, were dealt with in a very unsatisfactory manner, and with no regard whatever for normal planning guidelines.
I moved a not dissimilar amendment in Committee, which was supported by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and other Welsh bodies that are actively involved in planning issues in Wales. The core point is that we must have some strategic view of planning in Wales, otherwise we could end up with 21, 22 or 23 different unitary development plans and a very queer patchwork throughout Wales. Another obvious point arising from the new clause is that environmental issues cross development boundaries, and are vitally important; they do not adhere to a particular boundary.
The new clause is highly necessary. Those who are far more proficient than I am in planning matters feel strongly about it. They feel that the current safeguards in the Bill are not appropriate or strong enough and that we might well be left in a very haphazard position were the scenario referred to by the hon. Member for Gower to come about. I sincerely hope that the Government will give further thought to that important issue.
Will the Minister give me an assurance regarding the amendment that I tabled in Committee about the role of community councils? Since tabling that amendment, I have received upwards of 170 responses from community and town councils in Wales, all of them, bar two, supporting it. The Minister may recall that I said that there should be better consultation with community councils and that, if a community or town council wants to meet planning officers, that meeting should take place before any decision is made. I recall the Minister's words. He told me that either a similar amendment would be tabled on Report—which is today—or those words would be incorporated in guidelines issued to the new unitary authorities in their consultation process with the community councils. I trust that the Minister can give me some assurance on that. I fully support the purport of new clause 17.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for his concise and thoughtful speech. I well recall the much longer debates that we had on the subject in Committee, and his speeches then. I want to give him the assurance that he seeks about the relationship between the new local planning authorities and community councils. I am confident that the arrangements that we have in mind, particularly the guidelines that we intend to issue, will produce exactly the right form of consultations, and that we will see a better arrangement to ensure that the important views of community councils can be heard by the local planning authorities.
I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. His Committee's inquiries into planning have resulted in a useful working together for the Welsh Office, drawing on the work of the Select Committee. We are taking forward a process of monitoring departure applications, and I am sure that that is exactly the additional monitoring that the Committee wanted us to do. I am grateful for its assistance in that matter.
I am confident that the concept of unitary development plans will be a much better arrangement. It draws together the differences between what is now being done by the county councils and the district councils under one arrangement. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I am


confident that there will be timely progress in taking forward the unitary development plans, building on the work that has already been done by the existing councils.
Each local planning authority will be required to address strategic issues during the preparation and adoption of its unitary development plan. Policies related to the urban and rural economy, transport, planning, environment and conservation are among the topics that will be included in part 1 of the plan. Land use proposals will figure in part 2.
Under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, authorities will be required to consult adjoining authorities on strategic and other cross-boundary issues. Two or more neighbouring authorities may wish to prepare jointly their unitary development plans. That will be a matter for them. The quality of planning, however, will not be improved by mandatory groupings of authorities. Nor do I feel that they will be helped by having to issue guidance to themselves, because the new clause is very narrow, and the only object that would be achieved by that would be the preparation of joint guidance. Accordingly, I urge the House not to accept the new clause.

Mr. Morgan: That was a disappointing reply, but given the firmness with which it was delivered, it would be pointless to press the matter to a Division. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 1, line 18, leave out Parts I and II' and insert Part I'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments:
No. 11, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'areas' to end of line 23 and insert
'shall be as set out in Part I of Schedule 4 and shall be counties, save that a county may become a county borough under the provisions of section 245A of this Act.'.
Government amendments Nos. 41 to 47.
No. 16, in schedule 1, page 52, line 5, leave out 'Part I' and insert 'Parts I and II'.
No. 17, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 19.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to have the opportunity to move on to the question of the Government's persistence in their erroneous ways of attempting to divide the new world of unitary local government in Wales into two classes. The Government are, perhaps, wedded to two-tierism. We are a two-tier society. We have a two-tier health service and now we are to have two-tier local government in Wales—on the one hand through an attempt to rationalise Wales by having unitary local government and, on the other, the absurd attempt, which, in spite of all our attempts, so far has been resisted by the Government, to break up local government and make it class conscious almost before it comes into existence under the new unitary scheme.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will see, with reference to amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which come at the end of this

group of amendments, the schedules on pages 52 to 55 of the Bill lay out the names of the new authorities as though they were two cricket teams to be played against each other—as though they were gentlemen and players or, in some way, a class A and class B of new local authorities.
There is no purpose to that at all. It is purely related to status, not to function. I should have thought that the whole spirit of the Bill would follow the principle that we are trying to persuade those new local authorities to think about their functions as being 100 per cent. of the job in front of them, not their status. To make local authorities status conscious from day one and to discriminate between two groups of local authorities so that they have different status is patently absurd and absolutely not what the Government should be doing. Any casual glance at parts I and II of the schedules makes that quite clear. That is why in amendments Nos. 16 and 17 we abolish the distinction between part I and part II. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which we are initially discussing, are the ways of bringing that into the text of the main part of the Bill.
Government amendments Nos. 41 to 47 are minor technical amendments, relating to the freedom of authorities to drop such words as "county" and "shire" from their titles. We need not spend much time on them; our time should be spent asking the Government yet again to reconsider the grouping of authorities into two classes.
A particularly absurd aspect of the proposals is the fact that, although class A is clearly meant to be more important than class B, authorities can ask to move from class A to class B—in other words, they can ask to downgrade themselves to the second division—but cannot do the reverse. Authorities currently listed in schedule 1 are, in effect, being told, "You are the important ones, but if you decide that you want a mayor"—or, in the case of the cities of Wales, Cardiff and Swansea, a lord mayor; that is their historic right—"you must move into the second division."
That is patently absurd. The fact that authorities should be placed on a pedestal and then asked to lower themselves from the first to the second division if they want the status involved in having a lord mayor beggars belief. It would be much simpler to recognise cities' historic rights—and those of county boroughs, which, being already in the second division, automatically have mayors. The fact that Cardiff and Swansea are being required to ask the Secretary of State's permission to move into part II and, as it were, downgrade themselves because of the discriminatory nature of the legislation makes me wonder what the Government thought that they were doing in dividing the schedule into two parts, listing about 22 areas.
The Government should try to simplify and rationalise the Bill. The Secretary of State should employ the intellectual incisiveness for which he was famed as a university student. He should consider whether the Bill would be neater if it concentrated more on the functions of local government and less on the difference between the first and second divisions.
It would be better to create a single class of unitary authorities. The cities could then have their lord mayors, areas whose historical or geographical orientation makes them counties could have their chairmen and chairwomen, and historic boroughs could have their mayors: no authority would have to jump from one class to another.
It is not necessary to draw up two classes. All that is necessary is a schedule listing all the local authorities in


Wales, so that none is distinguished on the basis of status, but the title of each clearly implies whether it is an historic shire, an historic city or an historic borough.
The present "division 1" contains both present cities and present shires; it is not as though different types of authority area are being described. Division 1 contains shires and cities, while division 2 contains boroughs. If a city wants a lord mayor, however, it must jump from the county list to the borough list. That underlines the absurdity of the Government's obsession with creating two classes. They originate from a class-ridden society, and they are now creating another.
The list of local authority titles should be simple and rational. There is absolutely no purpose in dividing the schedule into two parts, comprising two apparently counterposed lists of local authorities which will be set aside from day one as though they differed in status—as opposed to powers. We do not want status-conscious local authorities; we want function-conscious authorities, anxious to do a job and orientated towards providing services for their citizens. The schedule starts the Bill off on the wrong foot, and will have the same effect on local authorities. I hope that the Government will reconsider.

Mr. Hain: I wish to press the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on a specific issue—the title of the new Neath and Port Talbot unitary authority. That title excludes a significant part of the new authority: upper Lliw, the upper Swansea valley and the lower Amman valley.
Schedule 15 states:
The name of a Welsh principal area shall not be changed under this section before 1st October 1996 except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Let us suppose that, having been elected—even with "shadow" status—a new unitary authority decides that, in order better to reflect its composition, it wishes to change its name. I see the Secretary of State nodding appreciatively: that is an unusual experience for me, and it may harm his reputation, but I hope that he will consider this matter sympathetically. Such action would be well received, and would provide certain reassurances. The right hon. Gentleman nods again; this is becoming dangerously repetitive.
As the Minister will appreciate, there is a proud tradition in the upper Swansea valley—which contains such towns as Ystalyfera, Pontardawe and Cwmllynfell —and the lower Amman valley, which contains Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen. Those towns—and even the little village of Rhiwfawr—do not feel that they can easily be associated with Port Talbot; they have a certain association with Neath because they are in the Neath constituency.
I realise that playing around with names on the Floor of the House of Commons could be seen as a dangerous pursuit for a sitting Member of Parliament; playing around with boundaries is dangerous enough, but playing around with names may be even more hazardous. I do not seek to impose any alternative name on the new authority—that is a matter for the new members—but the Bill contains an unsatisfactory element, in that it excludes a sizeable slice of the new authority which has an important tradition and identity and proud local communities.
Suggestions have been made, and I pass them on without prejudice in any direction. "New Glamorgan" has been suggested; some have even suggested "the Neath

Valleys"—a certain territorialism may be involved there. I do not think that Port Talbot would be terribly impressed. There is, however, a serious problem: the title of the new authority must give it an identity that is known to the outside world.
I understand why the Secretary of State may have gone for this option. At least Neath and Port Talbot are two relatively well-known names in Wales—Neath is, anyway —in terms of rugby and politics. That gives the area an identity: investors and visitors know where it is. I can see the logic. A more anodyne name such as "New Glamorgan" might run the contrary risk of making the area relatively anonymous.
I understand the difficulties involved, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to any request not just from the fully constituted operational authority but from the shadow authority to set itself up on an entirely fresh basis, taking into account the important local feelings of pride and identity that exist in the upper Lliw valley. Certainly, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has nodded vigorously at me suggests that he will do so.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The nomenclature of the areas presents a special problem for my constituency. Although Newport is generally happy with the Bill's provisions, it faces a unique problem: there are Newports in Wales and throughout the world, as a result of which much confusion has arisen. A couple of months ago, I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, in which he stated that he would visit an agricultural college in my constituency. I wrote back to say that I would be to happy to meet him and search for it and that, if we could not find it, he could meet the local Child Support Agency action group so that his trip would not be entirely wasted.
Newports are constantly confused. To establish the identity of the area, it should be given another name. For most of this century, the area was called Newport Monmouthshire. Since 1974, it has been known as Newport Gwent, which has become the established name. We are told by the Post Office, however, that once the Bill is enacted, we shall have to start calling it Newport, Newport, to which some objections have been made.
We commonly refer to our neighbour, the city of Cardiff, as "Newport, far west", which might be a suitable title if it is considering changing its name.
The problem, which dates back through the history of Newport, is what to call ourselves. There is only one Casnewydd in Wales: Casnewyyd Ar Wysg is the Welsh version of Newport. The River Usk flows through the town. Usk means water and is found in the word "Eskdale". One popular suggestion is that the town should change its name to Newport on Usk, which has a certain attraction and might be popular.
Our status is not accepted as permanent. Newport has long aspired to becoming a city. Newport County, a football team of great renown, is sadly no longer with us. Perhaps we could call ourselves Newport City and wait for the Queen or whoever is in charge of such matters to vest city status on Newport. The name of Newport presents -special problems which no other areas experience.
Newport has an enormously important and unique history in Wales. Certain parts of it are booming, despite the policies of the Government, in whom we are all beginning to lose faith, especially after the last couple of


days. Newport still has a great future and a rugged, robust personality and character. Those matters must be borne in mind.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 respond to an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). After consideration, we have decided that it would be right to give the new councils a degree of flexibility to determine their official title. In addition to the titles of county council and county borough council, the amendment would create a third form of plain council. It does not alter the legal status of the new authorities—they will still be counties or county boroughs—but it will permit an authority to be known simply as a council, as in Monmouthshire council or Pembrokeshire council. I commend the Government amendments to the House.
I noted the concern of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about the title of the authority now designated as Neath and Port Talbot. He will recollect that in Committee we passed an amendment that shortened the period in which the new authorities would require my right hon. Friend's permission to change their title. I assure him that my right hon. Friend remains sympathetic to any application, even while the authority is in shadow form. We are prepared to consider whatever application is made.
I recognise Newport's aspirations to become a city. Speaking as a citizen of the capital city of Wales, I regard that as a fine aspiration. On the basic conundrum about the title of the authority for Newport, I can but leave that with the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I assure the Opposition that there is no difference between county and county boroughs in terms of status, functions or responsibilities. The two designations were chosen because they are resonant of the traditional pre-1974 structures of local government, when county boroughs were unitary authorities and the administrative counties were responsible for almost all significant functions of local government in non-county borough areas. There is no reason, therefore, to pursue amendments Nos. 10, 11, 16 or 17.

Mr. Morgan: That answer was absurd. There was no difference before 1974. If one had two-tier local government, one had two-tier local government. The boroughs in the old county areas and the counties split functions between them. It is not valid to say that the counties were so predominant in their areas that they were almost all-purpose authorities—they were not. Anyone who was involved in borough government before 1974 knows that the counties and the boroughs split their functions. They were unlike county boroughs of Cardiff, Newport Swansea and Merthyr.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made some valid points about the need to recognise the contribution that the upper Swansea valley has made to cultural life in Wales. I have strong family connections with that area, which has produced more Welsh rugby captains per head than any other part of Wales: I list only Claude Davey, R.H. Williams, Clem Thomas, Clive Rowlands and Gareth Edwards. The contribution of that area, therefore, should be recognised. I shall leave it to my

hon. Friend and his constituents to work how that should be done. Perhaps a petition could be presented to Her Majesty, provision for which is included in clause 245.
If one comes from Cardiff, the issue involving Newport is a much trickier question. I have suggested that Cardiff may become known as the Latin quarter of Newport, although not in proceedings in the House. Cardiff is losing some of its industry, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said, Newport remains very much part of the world of work and industry—not something that I necessarily approve of.
The question of city status for Newport is affected by the problem that I referred to earlier. The schedule has been broken up into parts 1 and II. Inevitably, Newport will read the list. As the biggest and most historic town in division 2, it will naturally ask how it can be promoted to division 1. There is no provision to permit that. Cardiff and Swansea can apply to leave division 1 and go into division 2—they will have to if they are to have lord mayors. How will Newport get from division 2 into division 1? That is a great difficulty.
Newport has a great history, including something of a football history. In Frederick Raphael's "Glittering Prizes" the bright young things at Cambridge were asked whether they would prefer playing football to working for the BBC, Shell or BP. One said that he would have given up all the A-levels in the world to score a hat-trick for Newport County reserves. As Newport had been bottom of the Football League for five years running at the time, that was a mark of how they valued football above academic prestige, despite the glittering prizes of the Oxbridge world.
The problem would be solved by removing the distinction between part I and part II in the schedule. If the Government resist, I hope they will listen to the world of local government and will recognise that status in the new Wales does not count but function does. By the time the Bill goes to the other place, I hope that they will have thought again. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

CONSTITUTION OF NEW PRINCIPAL COUNCILS IN WALES

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 2, line 45, after 'Council"' insert 'or the word "Council"'.

No. 42, in page 2, line 45, leave out 'Anglesey' and insert 'Cardiganshire'. '

No. 43, in page 2, line 46, after 'Council"' insert 'or "Cardiganshire Council"'.

No. 44, in page 3, line 6, after 'Council"' insert 'or the word "Council"'.

No. 45, in page 3, line 7, after 'Council"' insert 'or "Caerphilly Council"'.

No. 46, in page 3, line 9, after 'Sirol"' insert 'or the word "Cyngor"'.

No. 47, in page 3, line 10, after 'Caerffili?? insert 'or "Cyngor Caerffili"'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

7 pm

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'Caerdydd and Abertawe' and insert 'Abertawe, Caerdydd and Powys'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 23, in schedule 1, page 52, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—


'Breconshire and Radnorshire
The districts of Brecknock and Radnorshire.'.


Sir Brycheiniog and Sir Faesyfed



Government amendments Nos. 76 to 82.

Mr. Jones: We have listened carefully to the arguments for separate authorities for Breconshire, Montgomeryshire and Radnorshire. The Government remain strongly of the view that each of the three districts within Powys is too small to be a self-standing unitary authority with all that that entails in terms of taking responsibility for the full range of local government services.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The Under-Secretary of State said something interesting and important. If Montgomeryshire is too small to be a free-standing local authority, why are not Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and Clackmannanshire too small to be free-standing local authorities?

Mr. Jones: This is a matter for consideration by the House and I am giving the House our advice on the subject.
The Government are alive to the concerns of people in Montgomeryshire, Brecknock and Radnorshire who want to preserve the identities of the old counties. We believe that that can be achieved within the context of the proposals in the Bill. The provisions in clause 27 and the new clauses that the House has already considered will provide the shire committees which will allow a real measure of decentralisation of responsibility and accountability for local services to local representatives.
On amendments Nos. 77, 81 and 82, we have given further careful consideration to this matter. On balance we feel that the community of Llanelly has closer affinities with areas in the proposed new authority of Monmouthshire. Lines of communication, social, economic and cultural links between the community and places such as Abergavenny, Govilon and Llanfoist appear to be much stronger than with places such as Crickhovvell in Powys. Our conclusion also takes account of representations such as the petition of 1,900 signatures presented to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) and the poll conducted by Blaenau Gwent borough council on 24 February, which showed that the Monmouthshire "option" was the most popular among electors in Llanelly. Accordingly, we propose that Llanelly hill should be within Monmouthshire.

Mr. Alex Carlile: What we have just heard is an insult to the House. If the Under-Secretary of State believed what he said, he would not have read it at such breakneck speed. There is an old horse racing expression to the effect that the jockey cannot come without the horse. What we heard was a horseless statement read by a tired jockey who did not believe in his capacity to finish the race, let alone to win it.
The Secretary of State reminded us yesterday of his speech at a Conservative party conference when he spoke of the identity that people felt with certain traditional communities. He helpfully reminded us of how he spoke in terms which meant that people could have their Rutlandshire and their Huntingdonshire—communities just like Montgomeryshire and Merionethshire, and just the sort of communities that we won back into the Bill in Committee.
I apprehend that if the Secretary of State, then the Minister responsible for local government, had been asked to include some Welsh communities in his speech at that time he would have added Montgomeryshire and Merionethshire and he would have done it without any compunction whatever.

Mr. Rowlands: His predecessor did.

Mr. Carlile: Yes. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) reminds me, the Secretary of State's predecessor did just that.
We have been over this ground before and I do not want to tread over rocky old ground again or repeat what has been said many times, so I shall not do so; it is all on the record. However, on behalf of my constituents I have to say that the paucity and threadbare nature of the Under-Secretary of State's answer to my intervention really gave the game away. For some hidden, obscure and politically motivated reason the Government have decided that Montgomeryshire and Merionethshire should no longer exist as local government areas. Having thus far represented Montgomeryshire for 11 years and a few days, it gives me great sadness to be here on the day when it has been decided that Montgomeryshire shall no longer have a council with a legal personality which can say, "We are the entity of Montgomeryshire." The last vestige of the old county of Montgomeryshire will be the continuation of the constituency of Montgomery in Parliament.The demise of Montgomeryshire as a council area was not wanted by the public and it will never be accepted by them. The Government must know that by forcing through this unwelcome change in local government boundaries and status they have failed to achieve the consensus that I am sure they hoped at the outset to achieve. It is inevitable that we shall return to local government reform in due course and give back to Montgomeryshire the council that it wants and deserves.
During the debates in Committee there was some welcome support from the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge, as we rehearsed in Committee, has a distinguished residential and business connection with Montgomeryshire. He fully understands that Montgomeryshire should be a county council in its own right. I suspect that he would recognise that there was an easy and straightforward option for the Government—to have a unitary Montgomeryshire and a unitary combined Brecon and Radnor. Although they may deny it now, I suspect that if the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor had told Ministers at a much earlier stage that he would settle for a combined Brecon and Radnor, that is what we would have got.
I fear that at the bottom of all this are political considerations concerning the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. I do not want to be unduly unfair to him—indeed, I believe that I shall be very fair to him. He acted courageously in opposing his party's Government and we know that as a result he had to take his toe off the lower rung of the ministerial ladder, although that may be only temporary. I informed the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor that I intended to make these comments and I believe that they should be put on the record. I am convinced that at an early stage in the deliberations he made a serious error of judgment and he


has become one of the authors of the destruction of Montgomeryshire as a local authority. I believe that his judgment was wrong in refusing to agree to a joint Brecon and Radnor unitary authority: in terms of jobs and accountability, it would have been far better for his constituency than the Powys pudding with which we are left.
As I have said, I believe that the Government would have agreed to the two-unit option for mid-Wales had the hon. Gentleman supported it. His actions in Committee, welcome as they were, may in the final analysis seem more like self-immolation than rebellion. I believe that his constituents in Radnor as well as in Breconshire would have understood a decision of the type that I require. I believe that in Radnorshire they would understand far better a situation in which they would have had a unitary authority combined with Breconshire than the situation that they are likely to face as a result, which is likely to be a Powys in which there will be shire committees for Montgomeryshire and Breconshire but not for Radnorshire. So we now face the situation that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has brought on his own constituents of Radnorshire of having every decision made by committees with representatives from Breconshire and Montgomeryshire.
I believe that by Government amendment No. 54 the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has been doublecrossed by the Government. He believed that it would take only 10 councillors from Radnorshire to have a shire committee, but now it will be 15 unless we achieve the unlikely result of defeating the Government a little later on. As a result, part of his own constituency will be seriously disadvantaged. I am sorry that I had to put that on the record, because I respect the hon. Gentleman for the course that he took in Committee, but when people look back on our debates that is one of the judgments that will be made.
As I have said, it is a very sad occasion to see the burial tonight of Montgomeryshire as a local authority. Montgomeryshire has existed for centuries and is well understood both within and outside Wales as being a distinguished old county. It has produced great citizens and contributors to the national life of the country and further afield, ranging across all walks of life, such as Robert Jones, perhaps one of the greatest of all social reformers, as well as great lawyers, great public figures, great statesmen, and great teachers who almost invaded London from Montgomeryshire by tradition. The dairies of London were known to be run by people from Meirionnyddshire and Montgomeryshire.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: And Caernarfonshire.

Mr. Carlile: And Caernarfonshire. Montgomeryshire has been part of the national heritage but tonight, apparently, we are to see it go. I regret that, and I believe that many hon. Members in the House—even on the Government side—privately share my regret.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I will deal first with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). Sadly, during the entire debate, the one thing that he has not recognised is that the claims of Radnorshire to independent unitary authority status are

just as good as those of Montgomeryshire. I do not blame him for advancing the claim of Montgomeryshire above all else but, sadly, his remarks tonight have demonstrated that he has not appreciated that the cause of Radnorshire stands alongside the cause of Montgomeryshire and that Montgomeryshire is not to be preferred.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), in his sorry contribution to our debate yesterday, expressed his certainty that I would find myself defeated on the part of Bill before us. He then tried to claim some narrow, party political advantage for himself from such a defeat. I begin by reminding the hon. Gentleman, who may not have understood this, that we are now debating the Government's proposals to overturn the decision of the Standing Committee on amendment No. 44, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and supported by the hon. Gentleman himself. He, on the Opposition Front Bench, signed that amendment. Accordingly, in his failure to mobilise the Labour party in support of the amendment, the hon. Gentleman is demonstrating a failure to support the very amendment that he proposed and the passing of which he managed to achieve in Committee.
It was not an insignificant event. The somewhat noisy hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)—I am sorry that he is leaving the Chamber—described it as the first Committee on which he had sat in which he had witnessed significant Government defeats. Another so far unnamed Labour Member reported to television Lobby journalists later that it had been the most exciting moment in all his time as a Member of the House. Yet today we have the sorry spectacle of the hon. Member for Caerphilly on the Opposition Front Bench aspiring to be the leader of political life in Wales but unable or unwilling to achieve the support of his colleagues to defend the success in Committee of which he boasted so much.
It is all so very different, I am sad to say, from the easy promises made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly in earlier debates. On Second Reading, he promised the hon: and learned Member for Montgomery:
I shall give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to vote on whether Powys should continue as a unitary authority … I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is my firm intention to support him."—[Official Report, 15 March 1994; Vol. 239, c. 759.]
We know that it was his firm intention to turn up, but that he was incapable of persuading the people whom he aspires to lead to be here to support him.
We heard so much yesterday about the hon. Gentleman's disappointment with my votes in Committee. His first response to me in Committee appeared as early as column 8, when he said:
The only thing that I want the hear from the hon. Gentleman is an 'Aye' when we vote on the creation of the county of Brecon."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 April 1994; c. 8.]
I might want to hear that sort of support from those who —supposedly—are behind the hon. Gentleman, but sadly he has been unable to bring them along today.
7.15 pm
Furthermore, just before the vote was taken in Committee the hon. Gentleman bravely stated:
I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment
and as an admonition to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) he said:
and I urge the Under-Secretary, to understand that if the amendment is accepted,
as it was accepted,
it will not just be",
to use an expression which no doubt trips off the hon. Gentleman's tongue,
to pull a fast one on the Government or to cause inconvenience, but to reflect the fact that the Government have got it wrong." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 April 1994; c. 103.]
If the Government have indeed got it wrong, it is a sad event that the hon. Gentleman cannot produce his supporters to demonstrate that by defending the change that was made in Committee.
Even after the vote had been taken, the hon. Gentleman again was quite outspoken in Committee. He said:
I assure the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor that … he will find Labour Members staunch allies in his cause"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 112.]
That is all very different from the remarks that we heard subsequently in the House yesterday from the hon. Member for Caerphilly.
Some have said that the hon. Gentleman has abandoned me. For my own part, I believe that the hon. Gentleman, who aspires to be a future Secretary of State for Wales, has abandoned the people of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire. I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday what he had said to the leaders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire—

Mr. Ron Davies: rose—

Mr. Evans: I will give way in a moment. I asked the hon. Gentleman yesterday what he had said to the leaders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire when they met him yesterday to plead their cause. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to respond, I will give way.

Mr. Ron Davies: I shall certainly respond in a moment to the case that the hon. Gentleman is trying to construct. First, I should put it on the record that the votes of his party's Government and his colleagues on the Conservative Benches will bring about the defeat of the proposal for which he argued in Committee.
All that I and my hon. Friends have said stands. We are in favour of the creation of three unitary authorities in Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire. When the appropriate time comes, I shall recommend to my hon. Friends that that is the course of action that we should take and that is course of action that I shall take, consistent with all my previous statements.

Mr. Evans: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman gave a rather different response to the leaders of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Breconshire yesterday. He told them that he had achieved a major concession from the Secretary of State for Wales. They asked what was that prize and what was the price extracted by this tough negotiator, the hon. Member for Caerphilly. Rumours abounded yesterday that it may be an independent Cynon valley authority, or was it to be an independent Neath or Rhondda? No. The hon. Gentleman proudly gloated to those leaders over his achievement. He said that the Secretary of State had agreed to allow him a vote at 6 o'clock on his half-baked referendum amendment. That was it. The greatest achievement of the man who aspires to be the Secretary of State for Wales, negotiating and fighting for Wales in Europe and beyond, is to have a say in the timetabling of his own failures. Having landed on the beaches of Normandy, the leadership skills of the hon. Gentleman would have allowed him to crawl back into the sea with the kind agreement of the enemy.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak at such length without mentioning any part of the amendment that we are attempting to debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was in order, and he is responsible for his own speech. If he had not been in order, the Chair would have said so.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly, my remarks are causing difficulties for Opposition Members. To round off my remarks about the conduct of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, I point out that he yesterday twice congratulated the Secretary of State on his birthday; with an opponent with the talents of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State must believe that every day is his birthday.
Paragraph 1.6 of the Government's consultation paper issued in 1991 declared that
local authority boundaries should as far as possible reflect and strengthen existing community loyalties".
On the eve of the general election, in March 1992, the then Secretary of State for Wales said that he would
consult further on whether to extend that approach"—
of local government based on the traditional counties—
to separate authorities for Radnorshire and Brecknock."—[Official Report, 3 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 171.]
My consistent response to that consultation has been to press the case for unitary authorities in my constituency based on the traditional shire counties.
By 1993 the Government had decided to propose a single Powys-wide unitary authority. However, even they recognised the immense practical difficulties of establishing such an authority without effective decentralisation measures. The Secretary of State has suggested that the powers short of full unitary status could be exercised by area committees which, it was proposed in earlier debates, could even be called county committees. However, the flaw in the Government's argument is that, without real financial accountability, area committees cannot deal with the need for local autonomy in the shire counties in mid-Wales.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, Government amendment No. 54 will effectively ensure that Radnorshire will be unable to apply for any decentralisation scheme. By setting the trigger number of councillors at 15, the Secretary of State has virtually ensured that decisions in Radnorshire will be made by councillors drawn from Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire itself.
I do not charge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with the duplicity or the grubby pursuit of party political advantage shown by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. The Secretary of State has always supported a centralised Powys authority and he has maintained the view that smaller authorities—those with under 50,000 people—cannot be permitted in Wales. The chief executives of the two district councils in my constituency, others in Caerphilly and people in Wales of all parties have made sterling efforts. I give credit to the Labour groups in my constituency which have strongly supported my arguments for the establishment of authorities based on Breconshire and Radnorshire. We have even cited Touche Ross, the Government's own advisers, who have shown that the proposals would be cost neutral.
The Secretary of State is well aware that authorities established under the Scottish arrangements will be smaller


than those proposed in the Bill. He is also aware that last Friday the independent Local Government Commission for England proposed a unitary authority for Rutland. That decision has undoubtedly been of great comfort to some of my English colleagues. I note, however, that on the very day that Rutland was proposed, the Secretary of State tabled amendments to ensure that the equivalent case for Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire was rejected.
Twenty years ago, Nicholas Edwards and Sir Raymond Gower carried their objections to the structural reform of Welsh local government into the Division Lobbies. Their views were rejected by the Conservative Government of the day, and they were defeated. With this Bill, the Government are recognising that they were right after all and they have re-established unitary council status for Pembrokeshire. It is ironic that in correcting that perceived injustice the Government have, with the connivance of the hon. Member for Caerphilly, committed as great an injustice in these amendments against the people of mid-Wales.

Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I do not intend to get involved in a party political slanging match because, at the end of the day, we are talking about the delivery of services to the people of mid-Wales. If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) were serious about the shire counties of mid-Wales being reinstated, why did he turn his back on the people of Meirionnydd?
Labour Members, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and I were fully supportive of the hon. Gentleman's case on the basis that separate shire authorities for the whole of mid-Wales could work together happily on developmental, structural and economic grounds. In addition, we knew that a review of the workings of the Development Board for Rural Wales was imminent. That was one of the mainsprings of the argument made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor but, alas, he then turned his back on the people of Meirionnydd. Even worse, he tried to persuade me not to push the matter to a Division because he said that he was confident that we would win tonight. I do not accept Tory advice at any time, but I am especially pleased that I did not accept it in this instance.
The hon. Gentleman is single-handedly responsible for the loss of Meirionnydd. Meirionnydd has existed since the immediate post-Roman times. His Conservative friend who will stand against me at the next election will have a torrid time of it when he embarks on his pathetic campaign trail.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman will confirm that, when we had our material discussion, he maintained that he would be able to organise a vote on Report. We are not able to debate the position of Meirionnydd at this point because he forced the matter to a Division. Furthermore, how I might have voted would not have affected the outcome.

Mr. Llwyd: I am not in a position to guarantee Opposition votes and I did not claim that I was. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to make such palpably ridiculous charges. I could not guarantee that Opposition

Members would vote for the amendments because I am in no way involved with the official Opposition. His statement is palpably untrue, but I shall leave it there.
Despite having existed for centuries, the historic counties of Montgomeryshire and Meirionnydd are to disappear because of the Government. My position is similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. We were both assured by the previous Secretary of State, who respected Welsh history and culture, that there would not be a problem. He said that our counties would be reinstated. In the light of that assurance, the hon. and learned Gentleman and I were happy. I shall not dwell on the skulduggery that has taken place since January—[Interruption.] I hear some Conservative Members making sedentary comments. They have not participated in the debate so far but, if they wish to do so, I shall give way to them. However, if they merely want to make a noise, there is plenty of room for them to do so outside the Chamber. This is a serious matter.
It angers me that we are faced with the effective extinction of historic counties for narrow party political ends. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, I have no doubt that we shall soon again debate local government in Wales as the Bill is flawed. It will need to be reviewed shortly, and I have no doubt that the saying "Tra môr, tra Meirion" will come through once again.
I am appalled at the way in which the Government have seen fit to ignore the views of 13,000 petitioners from Meirionnydd and the hundreds of letters that have been written by various people from all political persuasions, and taken this step. It makes me even more angry that the Prime Minister, in congratulating the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber and I wish him good luck—should give his seal of approval to a county that has a similar history to Meirionnydd and Montgomery, yet we as Welsh people in this Parliament are denied our rights. I have no doubt that our constituents will look to the Conservative party at the' next election and rue the day that this happened.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: I declare an interest which is in the Register of Members' Interests: my wife and I own a hotel in Montgomeryshire. I therefore have the pleasure of living in Montgomeryshire, seeing how Montgomeryshire district council operates and seeing how popular it is with local people, especially compared with the remote Powys county council.
I shall be brief. I felt that it was an insult that the Minister's introduction to the amendments took only two minutes. I had hoped that we would have a longer explanation of exactly what has happened since the Committee stage. I had hoped that the Minister would discuss why the second-best alternative of financial autonomy for the three area committees, which was dealt with last night, was not a starter. I understand that the proposal was put to the Department of the Environment on Monday this week. Why was it not dealt with earlier so that the various Departments could study the proposal more fully to see whether it was a runner?
On Friday, the proposal that Rutland should have its own authority was announced. That was an important decision, which was welcomed at Prime Minister's Question Time today. It is extraordinary that, within hours of the Prime Minister's welcoming the decision, a proposal


which was accepted in Committee, and which would have resulted in a similar situation, was overturned by the Government. The Rutland case is by far the most important thing that has happened since the Committee stage.
Undoubtedly, the proposals as agreed in Committee, with the support of two of my hon. Friends, have the support of the public. Public opinion polls have shown that. The comments that I heard when I was back at my hotel show that there is terrific support for the proposals that were agreed in Committee. We heard in Committee about the support from the community councils. The lower tier of local government wanted to retain the three authorities, and that is important.
I have lived most of my life in the border counties; I was born just over the border in Shropshire. As I moved into a county in 1992, I was interested to see that the Government proposed that the county of Montgomeryshire should be saved and should be the unitary authority. I welcomed the proposal at the time. In Committee, I quoted the words of the then chairman of the Conservative Association when an election meeting was addressed by the then Secretary of State for Wales. The chairman of the Conservative Association said that he was pleased to be back in Montgomeryshire and looked forward to its becoming a unitary authority. I can understand why not only the Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Labour supporters but the Conservative supporters in Montgomeryshire felt let down by the Secretary of State when he came forward with the proposals at this late stage after the election.
I regret that we need to fight again the fight that we fought and won in Committee. I am disappointed at Labour's attitude. Labour Members tried to explain that they would support this vote. I hope that we will see more than 70 Labour Members paraded in a few moments when we vote on the amendment. If that is all they can get to support the three authorities, it is a fairly poor show and the decision will rest with them. Some of my hon. Friends will support the Opposition parties in opposing the amendment. It will be interesting to see how many socialists go into the Lobby to support those of us who fought hard for the three counties.
It is a sad night. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, it is probably the end of the county of Montgomeryshire. I shall vote with a heavy heart against the Government's amendment. The Government should honour their election pledge to bring back a unitary authority for Montgomeryshire. I hope that Labour will produce enough votes tonight to join those of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), and other Opposition Members to defeat the Government's proposal. It lets down the electors of Montgomeryshire.

Mr. Ron Davies: Normally, I do not take much notice of the comments of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) because he has no mandate to speak on this matter in the House.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) has every right to be heard in the House. Should not the statement of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) be challenged?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) has just been heard.

Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was saying that, as far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman does not have a mandate on this matter. He does not have a constituency in Wales and he does not have the vote of one person living in Wales. The only interest that he has is the financial interest that he happens to have in his constituency.

Mr. Alan Duncan: He is in the House.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows all about financial interests; he was disgraced as a result of his financial dealings with the city of Westminster. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the question of financial probity, I am more than happy to give way to him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should dispense with the insults and get back to the debate.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge said that he would be interested to know how many socialists will be in the Lobby tonight. I venture to suggest that he is asking the wrong question. The question that he should ask is how many Tory Members will be in the Lobby to defend the interests of Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor. Having asked that question, he should then ask how many of them will be in the Lobby to ensure the destruction of unitary authority status for Montgomeryshire, Breconshire and Radnorshire, because they will decide the outcome of the vote.
I shall briefly restate the position that the Labour party has consistently held on this matter. During the statement made in the House when the White Paper was produced, I announced my support and that of my party. I referred specifically to the case made for Montgomery and Montgomeryshire. By implication, my statement of support for Montgomeryshire implied support for the case made for unitary authorities for Brecon and Radnor. The case has been made by those councils for the people of those areas. They made their own case, and it was supported admirably by the Council of Welsh Districts.
In Committee, the case was argued compellingly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I acknowledge the role that they played. The motion was carried because of the votes of Labour Members. We supported the case made for Montgomeryshire and Brecon and Radnor because we believed in the principle of self-determination. We also accepted the viability of those three authorities. The case for them will also be strengthened enormously when we have a Welsh assembly, which will be able to ensure that the necessary support and co-ordination for strategic services are given.
It was clear at an early stage that the Government were not prepared to accept those amendments, which were carried against the Minister's wishes.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Was the hon. Gentleman aware that, during the past few minutes, it has been revealed that the Government intend to abandon Government amendment No. 54 and that it will require only 10 members from an area to ask for an area committee?
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government can make that concession at this late stage—I express my appreciation of it—it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to have a rethink on unitary authorities, too, and that the House would appreciate that?

Mr. Davies: That was a dramatic intervention. If I replied to the hon. and learned Gentleman in full, I would have to divulge some of the inner workings of this place. I see that the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip is in position and that the Secretary of State is becoming embarrassed. I am a former Whip, so I am not prepared to divulge all the secrets, but I shall reply directly to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Yes, I was aware of that and asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who does not normally figure in these debates as he is an Opposition Whip, to consult the hon. and learned Gentleman.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will know that when we debated the matter yesterday I expressed my scepticism because the concession that he was seeking would have made the creation of area committees that much easier, which would have had a destructive effect on many of the communities in Wales that we have discussed. I believe that it will be a force for instability. I recognise, however, that the Government are trying to make some concession, presumably to appease the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, because that will allow the re-creation of an area committee for Radnor which, as the hon. Gentleman demonstrated concisely in Committee, would be denied by Government amendment No. 54.
I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central that he consult the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I am persuadable on the matter. If he feels that the Opposition should comply with the withdrawal of Government. amendment No. 54, we will consider doing so.
I must place on record, however, the fact that my colleagues and I want to give the strongest possible support to unitary status for Montgomery, Brecon and Radnor. The proposals contained in the decentralisation measure do not provide a recipe for dealing with the inherent contradictions that exist within a Powys unitary authority. They will also be destructive of local government. That is why I believe that the way to deal with those matters is to strike out clauses 27 and 28, which is what we advocated in Committee and last night.
I was referring to decentralisation when the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery intervened. I recall the attitude of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor in Committee. He said that he supported decentralisation. He did so only because he realised that his attempt to break up —if I can use that expression—the Powys unitary authority into its constituent parts was doomed to failure. He supported the decentralisation measure to prepare for that eventuality. He made that quite clear.
In fairness, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave precise expression to those views when we debated the matter in Committee. I understand that, as it was a practical and realistic expression, but it does not fit with the sense of synthetic outrage that we get from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, who pretends that all

along he has been a vigorous defender of the interests of Brecon, Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire and that he will brook no compromise.
Clauses 27 and 28 stand testament to the attempts of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor to reach a compromise deal with the Government. The whole purpose of the compromise was so that he could sell out on unitary authority status. That is the reason for the latest Government attempt to backtrack on their position, for which they were prepared to go to the wall yesterday, on amendment No. 54. They understand that, by doing so, they will deny the hon. Gentleman even that fig leaf of a decentralised area committee for his proposed unitary authority of Radnorshire. Since the hon. Gentleman seems to be in some discomfort—at least, he is pulling faces and getting very agitated—I shall happily give way to him. We have plenty of time.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I was becoming a little concerned because, in one of our first debates on the subject, the hon. Gentleman promised three times to give way to me but never did. He will recall that in Committee I was prepared to consider area committees, provided that financial autonomy was included. I had a consistent and regular position, but sadly the Secretary of State said yesterday that he was not able to concede that.

Mr. Davies: Every time the hon. Gentleman intervenes in this debate he demonstrates two things: his failure to convince the Government of the merit of his case—if I had been such a failure, I should have been a little more reticent —and the fact that he has no support tonight on the Conservative Benches.
When we debated these matters in Committee, we supported first Montgomeryshire, then Brecon and Radnor. Then, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, we supported him. We did so because it was a matter of principle and because we believed that those small rural unitary authorities could be viable, especially in the context of a mid-Wales forum.
First, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor denied his reciprocal support to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, thereby denying the very principle that he asked us to endorse. Secondly, and even more destructively of his case, he knowingly denied the opportunity for the creation of a mid-Wales forum. By removing the opportunity of a Meirionnydd that could have joined those unitary authorities, he destroyed that concept of a mid-Wales forum, but that concept provided the alternative that would have allowed the Government to make a concession on the Floor of the House.
I do not know why, but I confess that I share with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery admiration for the forthright position that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor took by voting for a separate Brecon, Radnor and Montgomery. I fail to see why, however, having resigned his position and voted against the Government on those issues, the hon. Gentleman failed to follow the logic of his position and the principle that all Opposition Members had united in defending in Committee. I do not understand why he failed to do so.
What has happened since Committee stage has been significant. First, the Government have accepted the principle of two-tier government—not in Wales, unfortunately, but in England. I share the hope expressed by the


hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that, even at this late stage, the Government will recognise that they have got the thing totally wrong and are in a minority in Wales. I share that hope, but it is a forlorn one. It is worth putting it on record that the Government consider Clackmannan in Scotland, with a population of 47,000, to be worthy of unitary authority status and that Rutland, with a population of 37,000 is also worthy of such status.
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say this afternoon that questionnaires are to be sent to every household in Huntingdonshire so that local people can have their say. He said:
That is the right way to proceed.
That is from the Prime Minister of a Government who insisted yesterday that new clause 11, which would have given precisely the same right to every authority in Wales, must be defeated. Where does the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor stand now? Where do the Secretary of State for Wales and his Front-Bench colleagues stand? Why is it that small authorities can exist in England and Scotland? Why can those in England and Scotland—with the seal of approval from the Prime Minister—have a referendum?

Mr. Alex Carlile: We are a colony.

Mr. Davies: The hon. and learned Gentleman shouts that we are a colony. We are not; we are a proud nation. At the moment, we are suffering from maladministration. The Prime Minister today stated clearly the contempt with which the Conservative party views those of us who live in Wales and who represent Welsh constituencies.
I believe that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor shares that contempt. Having failed to persuade the Government, and having also manifestly failed to organise any support on the Conservative Benches for his case, he is now trying to divert attention from his failures by blaming the Labour party. I do not understand that.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the parliamentary arithmetic is quite simple, but I shall spell it out for the record so that the electors of Brecon and Radnor have a clear understanding of what has happened. The Government have a substantial overall majority. It would require a significant move by Conservative Members, either to join us in the Lobby or to abstain. We need at least 25 Conservative Members and we need to mobilise all Opposition Members to defeat the Government tonight. The hon. Gentleman has made no attempt to mobilise that opinion.
If there was an opportunity, it arose during the debate on new clause 11 last night. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor seeks to persuade the House and the people of Brecon and Radnor that it is conceivable that all Opposition Members—including more than 260 Labour Members—will come along tonight to endorse a proposition in which the Conservative party has a direct interest. Opposition Members know that the proposition will not restore to our councils—Labour, Liberal Democrat and independent councils—the same rights as the hon. Gentleman demands for Brecon and Radnor. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking to rewrite the statute now; we are just asking for the same rights for our constituencies and districts.
We know how consistent the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor is. We do not have to look in the looking-glass, because we can read the record. When the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to show consistency of principle, he ratted on it in Committee. He failed to support the case for

Meirionnydd, and the cases which we were making for Rhondda, Cynon, Taff, Port Talbot, Neath, and so on. That is a fact.
If there was an opportunity to defeat the Government and to carry the cases for Brecon and Radnor, Montgomery and Meirionnydd, it came last night in the debate on new clause 11. The hon. Gentleman failed not only to mobilise support for it, but failed even to put himself in the Lobby. He is now trying to suggest that we should bail him out. He failed to win the argument, he manifestly failed to win the vote last night and he failed even to persuade the Government of the logic of his case.
I wrote to the Secretary of State last night, saying:
I recognise that opinion on this matter is divided on both sides of the House and I will be taking the unusual step of proposing that Labour MPs have a free vote on this question. I hope you will be able to adopt a similar position to decide this matter free of any party dogma.
There is a strong case for that, given that we know that there are manifest divisions on both sides of the House.
Local government in all the countries of the United Kingdom is now in turmoil. Why do the Government seek not only to impose different standards on England, Scotland and Wales but to have their ideological writ run wherever they can? I do not understand that, and that is why I wrote to the Secretary of State suggesting that, in the case of Powys where opinion is divided, we should have a free vote. Unfortunately, he has not responded. Presumably, therefore, the Conservative party will be whipped tonight. If the proposal is carried, it will not be because of the absence of Labour Members; it will be because of the Whip which the Government are imposing.
I shall vote tonight against the Government and I shall recommend that my hon. Friends join me in the Lobby. I know that the statements, speeches, actions and attitudes of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor represent nothing more than a gesture. He has been the architect of his own failure.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I totally reject the contemptible approach of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) towards my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) and for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). Their contributions to our debates on the subject of local government reorganisation in Wales are just as welcome and constructive as the hon. Gentleman's, and usually more so.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No, I do not want to give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall reply to the debate and I am using the same maxim as the hon. and learned Gentleman of not going over the old ground time and time again. We have certainly aired all the arguments very well, and it is now time to come to a conclusion.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has acted throughout with principle and consistency in continually seeking to advocate what he believed to be the best for his constituents. At the same time, he will accept that the Government have equally acted with principle and consistency in putting forward what we believe is the best arrangement for Brecon and Radnor, and for the rest of Wales.
I believe that it is better because, by proposing a Powys council, we are bringing forward suitable arrangements with a principal authority which is appropriate for mid-Wales. Our proposals for shire committees will make


considerable progress in bringing control of local matters to locally elected representatives in the historic counties. That will be a far better arrangement for Breconshire, Radnorshire, Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire and any other part of Wales which seeks to take up the opportunities for shire committees.

Mr. Alex Carlile: rose—

Mr. Jones: I do not want to be overlong tonight. Members of the Standing Committee know that I dealt at some length with the possibilities of the shire committees. They are possibilities, and we are not laying down formulas. It is up to local people to decide what they want to make of the decentralisation schemes. I believe that they are better arrangements than what has been advocated. What we are coming forward—

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he would not give way to deal with points that have been already discussed, and of course he is right. Is it in order and appropriate for him to give way on a new point, and is it in order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a long-time campaigner in the House and he is very experienced. He knows the answer to that question. The Minister is responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Jones: I am concluding, and I think that the House wants me to make progress and not to waste any more time this evening.
I must say that we will not pursue amendments Nos. 54 and 55. We have listened to what was said yesterday and we have reflected on the matter. We are conscious of the situation of Radnorshire and we believe that there should be an appropriate threshold for numbers of councillors to trigger a decentralisation scheme. We do not look upon the matter as a party political one. It was suggested yesterday that it would need something like 90 per cent. of members elected for one party ticket.
Instead, we are looking for a high level of uniformity from locally elected representatives coming forward on the basis of what they want for their local county. After what we have heard, we are prepared to go back to the original threshold of 10 and therefore we will not be moving the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 35.

Division No. 263]
[7.58 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Amess, David
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Chapman, Sydney


Bates, Michael
Clappison, James


Batiste, Spencer
Coe, Sebastian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Congdon, David


Booth, Hartley
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boswell, Tim
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bowis, John
Cran, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bright, Graham
Deva, Nirj Joseph





Devlin, Tim
Mans, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Merchant, Piers


Duncan, Alan
Mills, Iain


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Evennett, David
Moss, Malcolm


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fishburn, Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Page, Richard


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Patnick, Irvine


Gardiner, Sir George
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gillan, Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Richards, Rod


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hague, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Haselhurst, Alan
Spencer, Sir Derek


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Hendry, Charles
Sproat, Iain


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Stephen, Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stern, Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Sumberg, David


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sweeney, Walter


Jenkin, Bernard
Sykes, John


Jessel, Toby
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Key, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Kilfedder, Sir James
Trend, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knapman, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Waterson, Nigel


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Watts, John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wells, Bowen


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Whitlingdale, John


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Widdecombe, Ann


Legg, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Lidington, David
Willetts, David


Lightbown, David
Wolfson, Mark


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wood, Timothy


Luff, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacKay, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maitland, Lady Olga
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Malone, Gerald
Mr. Derek Conway.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Llwyd, Elfyn


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Barnes, Harry
Macdonald, Calum


Bayley, Hugh
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Morgan, Rhodri


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Rendel, David


Dafis, Cynog
Rowlands, Ted


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Spellar, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Timms, Stephen


Gunnell, John
Wareing, Robert N


Hanson, David
Wigley, Dafydd


Harvey, Nick



Hawksley, Warren
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mr. Paul Flynn.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

COMMUNITY COUNCILS FOR GROUPS OF COMMUNITIES

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—

?( ) An order under this section shall make such provision as appears to the council making it to be necessary for the application to the communities included in the group of all or any of the provisions of section 79 of the Charities Act 1993 (parochial charities) and of any of the provisions of this Act with respect to the custody of community documents, so as to preserve the separate rights of each community.'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 17

GENERAL PROVISION FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 13, line 20, leave out `to the contrary'.

No. 103, in page 13, line 22, leave out express'.

No. 51, in page 13, line 27, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert' a'.

No. 52, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert' a'.

No. 53, in page 13, line 34, leave out from `Where' to `that', in line 36, and insert
?in relation to any relevant legislative provision, any question arises as to which new principal area is the appropriate new principal area for the purposes of that provision'.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 25

SERVICES

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 19, leave out lines 21 to 45.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 26, page 20, line 23, after '1996', insert `and
(c) hold public meetings in their areas to discuss the service delivery plans.'.
No. 9, in page 20, line 26, at end insert—
?(3A) A council's service delivery plan shall be published in English and in Welsh.'.

Mr. Murphy: I hope that these amendments will not occupy the House for long.
The three amendments which lie in my and my hon. Friends' names refer to cross-border trading or tendering, to clause 25, which we discussed at some length in Committee, and to service delivery plans. I refer to the arguments that the Government made in Committee. We said then, and we say today, that the Opposition agree with the idea of cross-border trading or tendering. We believe that there is an opportunity for different local authorities in Wales, not only to trade with one another, but to give one another their skills and the expertise that all our local authorities in the Principality have established over many years. In Committee, Ministers said that they would reconsider the operation of clause 25.
Our reservations about the clause were twofold. First, we thought that the geographical restrictions that the Government were to impose on cross-border trading were too restrictive. We said that if it were possible, for example, for the skills in Anglesey to be used by a council in south Wales, that should be a reality. I believe that it was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who said that he would re-examine those geographical limitations.
The other limitations, which may be more serious, referred to those parts of the clause which, in turn, refer to compulsory competitive tendering. Effectively, those

sections say that cross-border trading cannot operate if the services concerned are covered by the Government's regulations regarding compulsory competitive tendering.
There are two problems. The first is that, as recently as this week, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), in reply to a written question, said:
Compulsory competitive tendering is being extended to six professional support services, in a phased programme—legal services, professional construction and property services, IT, finance, personnel, and corporate and administrative services." —[Official Report, 14 June 1994; Vol. 113, c. 346.]
Some of those are the very services which, we believe, could be offered by one local authority to another.

Mr. David Hanson: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 27 April 1994 the very same Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said at a seminar that he believed that it should be possible for cross-border tendering to take place? I should be interested to hear later whether the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales agrees with that presumption, which has already been put forward by the Department of the Environment at that conference.

Mr. Murphy: I hope that in reply the Minister will take those facts into account because they seem to be contradictory. I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment was right and that cross-border trading could operate in the sectors that I mentioned.
The other aspect of CCT that is affected by clause 25 is that of the areas that are already covered by compulsory competitive tendering. The most significant one is that which refers to the highways functions of our present county councils. The Minister will recall that, in Committee, he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State jointly announced eight what they called "centres of excellence" in Wales. Those would relate to the highway functions, and they would also have taken over much of the work of highway DLOs in Wales, which are currently run by our county councils. The Government agree—and we agree with the Government—that they are centres of excellence.
The problem is that if those centres of excellence are unable to take part in cross-authority trading and tendering, their viability would be put at serious risk because they would be restricted to the management of trunk roads, motorway networks and only 35 per cent. of the work within the local authority's boundaries. There is some doubt about whether those centres of excellence of highways provision could then apply.
The Government also said that they would consider the Council of Welsh Districts' safeguards, which were outlined in Committee because obviously, as the Minister said in Committee and might say again this evening, they were worried about the risk that would be accepted by the local authorities were they to undertake cross-border trading. I said in Committee—the CWD indicated its support on that issue—that the district auditor, the work of the council through its committee system, and the Secretary of State's powers under sections 13 and 14 of the Local Government Act 1988 are sufficient safeguards to protect, not only local authorities that engage in trading, but other local authorities.
I do not think that cross-border trading will harm the viability of our local authorities. It can bring only good to all our authorities in Wales, especially now that they are becoming smaller. We fear that some of the excellent services that are provided, especially by the county councils, should be safeguarded and given to those other local authorities. The last thing that we want is for it to be used as a means simply of privatising more local government services. I do not think that that is under consideration at the moment. What is under consideration is the best delivery of services by the 20-odd—I am not quite sure how many it is now—unitary authorities in Wales.
The purpose of amendment No. 3 is to widen the public debate about service delivery plans. The Government—in our view, rightly—are indicating that those plans should be published. We are saying that those published plans could well be the subject of public meetings. At those meetings, the public who are worried about county council services such as adult education and other matters with which the county deals would be safeguarded by the service delivery plans of the new unitary authorities.
It is also important because the service delivery plans should include the safeguards that the Government intend for the voluntary organisations in Wales. We believe that the Government should give proper guidance to the new transitional committees, and that that guidance should contain recommendations for transitional funding for voluntary organisations in Wales. That has been discussed at length in Committee and I do not want to elaborate today.
Those are our arguments. The Government said that they would return to the Floor of the House to answer the arguments that we and the local authority associations had made to them about CCT.

Mr. Hanson: I do not wish to detain the House for long, but I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will answer a couple of arguments.
I shall not revisit the discussion that we had in Committee. There was an extensive discussion about the Government's original intentions for lead authorities, which were outlined in the White Paper and which indicated the possibility of having centres of excellence within local authorities and thereby allowing some cross-border trading. A centre could be established with a lead authority providing a service which other authorities, such as my own county of Clwyd, could buy in to improve their own local services more efficiently and cost-effectively. As a result of the discussions in Committee, the Government agreed to consult various authorities and agencies in Wales on how best to overcome the matter.
It was obvious from what Lord Rodger of Earlsferry said in another place that the Government intended that cross-border tendering should no longer be part of the fabric of local authority organisation—for reasons, it appeared to the Committee, of pure dogma. I hope that the Committee convinced the Under-Secretary that the Government's objectives for CCT would not be negated by cross-border tendering because everything that could be done under CCT would remain the same and the protections would be in place, but there would be the opportunity to provide what we believe the Government

want, which is cost-effective and efficient local services in a number of areas, highways being the one that we discussed most.
I want the Under-Secretary now to tell us the results of the consultation. I understand from a parliamentary reply that letters were sent out on 23 May with replies being sought by 7 June. What response did the hon. Gentleman have from local authorities and organisations on the issue of cross-border tendering? That is relevant to our debate today and I want their responses placed on the record.
The arguments that we advanced in Committee are still valid today. There is no good reason why there should not be cross-border tendering within the new local government structure. The Government have expressed several fears if cross-border tendering is allowed. The first is that the private sector would not be able to take part in certain services in which it is currently involved. That is a fundamentally misconstrued belief. With CCT, anyone who offers a cross-border service, whether from Flintshire, Wrexham or Denbighshire, will do so on the basis that he will win the tender because he has been competitive. Private organisations can still bid for that service and if they are the most cost-effective, the most efficient and in the best interests of the ratepayers, they will win the contract.
Secondly, the Government suggested that the lead authority would place a burden on its own ratepayers. For example, a lead authority such as Flintshire might set up all the infrastructure and expertise in-house to provide a highways service to Denbighshire and Wrexham, but at the end of the day those authorities might decide not to purchase the service. The ratepayers of Flintshire would then suffer a loss. However, local authority organisations have explained to the Government that the district auditor can step in and the Government's powers can be used to stop such a situation dead in its tracks if a local authority provides a service that then begins to lose money. Therefore, the Government's argument is negated.
The arguments for negating cross-border tendering do not hold water. The private sector, which the Government want to compete, can still compete and, if it is efficient, it will win. If, for whatever reason, a local authority finds that it is losing money on a service that it provides, the Government have the power via the district auditor, via councillors who would not wish to be surcharged, or via the Secretary of State's powers to end that service and provide an alternative method of service delivery.
Since the Committee stage, I have discovered that on 27 April the hon. Member for Banbury said at a conference that local government reorganisation would provide fresh opportunities for the delivery of services. He also said—and it is significant for this debate—that there were cases where a council's DSO should be able to deliver services to another council's area or for a joint body of several unitary authorities to provide a service.
I return to the point made often by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies): if the hon. Member for Banbury intends to include in the forthcoming English Bill a facility for local authorities to provide a service, in co-operation with each other, to beat the system of competitive tendering—to allow, perhaps, Rutland to provide a highways service to a neighbouring authority such as Huntingdonshire—why will not the Welsh Under-Secretary do the same for Wales?
I am an Englishman representing a Welsh seat. I received the vote of Welsh constituents, but I was born in


England. I am a Member of a British Parliament. I reside in Clwyd. I do not want the residents of Saltney, one mile from Chester, to receive a service that is different from the residents of Chester, which is just over the border. I am acutely aware of the border as it falls in my constituency. If the Department of the Environment allows Cheshire county council to do one thing and the counties of Flintshire and Denbighshire to do another, I shall be angry and upset. There must be a level playing field between the Cheshires and the Clwyds and between England and Wales.
I rest my case. Tonight we want to hear from the Under-Secretary the detailed results of the consultation following the Committee stage. Does he agree with his Government colleague, the hon. Member for Banbury, or is Wales yet again to be the poor relation to England in cost-effective service delivery?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: We have had useful debates on this subject both tonight and in Committee. As we promised in Committee, we have consulted the local authority associations, although I cannot go through all the responses this evening. We believe that the powers for regulation are still needed, but I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that we do not intend to impose any geographic restrictions unless there is clear evidence of authorities abusing their freedom to provide services to authorities throughout Wales.
In the case of services subject to competitive tendering, we see no case for cross-border tendering for work such as refuse collection, building maintenance and catering. We have considered carefully the professional services that will become subject to competitive tendering after reorganisation. We have concluded that personnel, legal and financial services that are already adequately dealt with by even the smallest district council, and where there are many potential private sector suppliers, should not be used for the purposes of clause 25. However, we are still considering the possibility that authorities appointed as my right hon. Friend's agents for trunk road maintenance should be allowed to provide professional highways services to other authorities. In due course, we will consult further on draft regulations and will keep the position under review.
If genuine difficulties emerged, it would always be possible for my right hon. Friend to amend the regulations to provide a more relaxed regime. I cannot commend the Opposition's amendment to the House, principally because it would remove my right hon. Friend's regulation-making power.
On amendment No. 3, the Government believe that it is for the new councils to decide how best to publicise their service delivery plans. The publication of those plans will provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the shadow authority's proposals, and I suspect that shadow authorities will wish to consider whether a public meeting is the best way to subject their plans to public scrutiny. I am happy to consider whether the thrust of the amendment should be included in the guidance, but I am not prepared to limit the discretion of the authorities by including it in the Bill.

Mr. Murphy: There is a mixture of disappointment and agreement here. On the disappointment side, I do not understand for a second why some of the personnel, legal services, information technology and so on, certainly in the

more sparsely populated areas of Wales, could not be the subject of cross-border tendering. Nobody would have anything to lose and there would be an awful lot to gain if that were to occur.
8.30 pm
I am, however, grateful that the Minister has agreed to have a further look at the highways provision and I am glad that the Government have agreed that the geographical restrictions should be lifted. It is also important that the possibility of public meetings will be included in the guidance notes to local authorities.
Although I am disappointed, I am grateful for those concessions and to that end I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now move directly to amendment No. 56, to be moved formally.

Mr. Morgan: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there a problem?

Mr. Morgan: I wanted to speak to amendment No. 59.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not think that we have got there yet. We have reached amendment No. 56.

Clause 28

DECENTRALISATION SCHEMES:APPROVAL, IMPLEMENTATION AND SAFEGUARDS

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 22, line 6, leave out `one year' and insert 'six months'.

No. 57, in page 22, line 11, at end insert—
?( ) Where he proposes not to approve the scheme as submitted, the Secretary of State shall notify the council concerned, before the end of that six month period, of the modifications which he proposes to make to the scheme, or (as the case may be) that he proposes to reject the scheme.
( ) Before he approves a scheme subject to modifications, or rejects a scheme, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations which have been made to him by the council concerned.'.

No. 58, in page 22, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 23.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now move to amendment No. 59.

Clause 32

DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES OF PRINCIPAL COUNCILS: EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 25, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 26.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60, 110 and 111.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Clauses 32 and 33 were intended to allow the new authorities in Wales the opportunity to experiment with alternative forms of political management within the framework provided by the existing system, but, of course, there was severe criticism of the clauses in Standing Committee and we concluded that further consideration would be beneficial before legislating for


changes to a system which appears to be working quite well. Therefore, we have decided that the introduction of a completely new unitary structure with all that that entails in terms of upheaval and reorganisation of services is not the right time to be putting forward the proposals included in clauses 32 and 33, so we decided to remove them.

Mr. Morgan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having misheard you a few seconds ago. I only wanted to speak briefly on the matter.
Obviously I shall not oppose the Government introducing amendments for which we pressed hard in Committee, but it is fair to say that the Minister did not tell the whole story in that brief introduction. We were asking for a spirit of experimentation which would involve some discussion of the benefits to central Government of the merits of those aspects of the historical functions and modus operandi of local government that we were commending. We were asking for the same flexibility to be applied, possibly to the proceedings of the House. As a result of some of the movements in the direction of flexibility in the reform of Prime Minister's questions and other aspects of the Jopling report, we thought that the Government should give serious consideration to measuring the benefits of Opposition Members having access to civil servants who work only for Ministers in central Government, but whose equivalents work for both sides of the political divide, if there is one, in local government.
Had we had equal access to those officials, as we would have done in local government, we might then have been able to uncover some of the mysteries of the functions of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and its rather strange extensions which appear to have affected or had a side effect on the proceedings of the Bill.
We were concerned with the principle of measuring the effectiveness of Government. If they want experiments, they should apply them not only to local government, but to central Government. In order to have an experiment, we need some measurement technique to decide what we would count as a success or an improvement on the present system.
Many of us have had short, medium or long experience in the House as well as backgrounds in local government either as elected members—in some cases leaders of councils—or, as in my case, as a local government officer and a civil servant before coming to the House. We therefore have some idea of how some of the advantages of the civil service and Cabinet government and some of the advantages of the committee system and shared access to full-time local government officers could be applied to central and local government simultaneously in a properly measurable, audited and independently validated experiment to improve local and central Government.
Some aspects of local government practice would benefit enormously the proceedings of the House and central Government through the Executive, and some aspects of central Government practice could be brought into local government through experimentation procedure, as was the purpose of the two amendments.
We are happy that the Government have listened to us, although they heard only half the message and took the easy way out by scrapping the whole idea without really

conceding the principle that both central and local government could do with a great deal of improvement and could learn a great deal from each other.
Obviously, the Government are nervous about learning something from local government and giving Opposition Members equal access to full-time local government officials. As a result, they have taken the coward's way out. Before anybody had too many bright ideas about giving Opposition Members access to Parliamentary Counsel, private offices or full-time civil servants, they decided to scrub the idea of introducing Cabinet government monopoly access to full-time officials for people on the majority side in a party organisation, using the techniques of Cabinet government and having the sole loyalty of the full-time officials until they get thrown out at the next election.
By scrapping the two clauses and the idea of experimentation, the Government have shown that they never thought it through in the first place; nevertheless, I warmly welcome their decision.

Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my hon. Friend's wonderful recollection of the debate is the accurate one. My own is that my hon. Friend's marvellous mocking humour shamed Ministers and we probably made too good a case against the clauses. I suspect that, as a result, the Minister has given up and given way.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

DECISION MAKING PROCEDURES OF NEW PRINCIPAL COUNCILS: PERMANENT PROVISION.

Amendment made: No. 60, in page 26, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 38

INITIAL TRANSFER OF ASSETS TO COUNCIL FUNDS.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 31, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 32.
I must first thank the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who helped us reach the conclusion that clause 38 can be deleted. In Standing Committee, he asked whether the assets referred to in subsection (1) could include, for instance, council houses whose finances are dealt with in the housing revenue account and whether, therefore, the clause duplicated the order-making power in clause 54, which provides for the transfer of property rights and liabilities.
The answer to his question was that clause 38 would not operate in that way, but we have looked at the position again and concluded that clause 54 gives my right hon. Friend all the necessary power to transfer assets and clause 38 can therefore be deleted.

Mr. Murphy: I wish simply to place on record the fact that at least four columns of the Committee Hansard were devoted to the Government's defence of clause 38. I am extremely grateful that the Minister has conceded that the clause is unnecessary, but more importantly agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), as he did in all the proceedings of the Committee, made an outstanding contribution to the success of that Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

Amendments made: No. 62, in page 34, line 39, leave out from '(1)' to end of line 3 on page 35 and insert
'In determining the effect of any provision of—

(a) Part IV, V or VI of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, or
(b) Chapter II of Part IV of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992,

in relation to a person whose contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act, it shall be assumed that he was dismissed by the old authority concerned by reason of redundancy immediately before 1st April 1996 and that his dismissal was proposed by the authority.
(IA) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person's contract of employment is terminated as a result of this Act if—

(i) immediately before 1st April 1996 he was in the service of an old authority under a contract of employment which would have continued in force if that authority had not been abolished; and
(ii) his contract of employment is not transferred to a new principal council or to the Residuary Body; and

(b) a contract of employment is transferred—

(i) to a new principal council, if it is treated by any provision made by this Act, or by or under any other enactment, as continued in force with that council on 1st April 1996; or
(ii) to the Residuary Body, if it is so treated as continued in force with the Residuary Body on that date.'.

No. 63, in page 35, line 5, leave out 'such'.

No. 64, in page 35, line 5, after 'payment' insert
'under Part VI of the Act of 1978'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 45

OTHER COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 35, line 12, leave out from?(1)' to end of line 16 and insert
'This section applies where any contract of employment made before 1st December 1993 is terminated as a result of this Act.
(1A) Subsection (IA) of section 44 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.

No. 66, in page 35, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations exclude the operation of this section in prescribed circumstances (and, in particular, in cases of engagement by new principal councils).'. —[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 47

OLD AND NEW PRINCIPAL AREAS WITH THE SAME NAME

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 36, line 27, leave out '1' and insert '1(1)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 112.

Mr. Jones: Clause 65(2) provides for certain clauses to come into force on enactment. However, as implementation will take place in 1996, there is no longer the pressing need to have the other provisions of clause 1 amending the 1972 Act immediately following Royal Assent. They can be phased in using the commencement order powers under clause 65.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50

EXISTING JOINT BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND PORT HEALTH DISTRICTS

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 37, line 38, after 'councils' insert
'in relation to such areas in Wales'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 68 to 70.

Mr. Jones: Clause 50 provides the mechanism for the transfer of property held by existing county councils in Wales and required to be applied in accordance with section 90 of the Welsh Church Act 1914. To avoid the division of a property into 22 funds—one for each council —it is to be vested in the lead authorities. The amendments make minor technical changes to clarify the provisions for apportionment of the funds, which will take effect on 1 April 1996.

Mr. Murphy: The Minister will recall that there was a lively debate in Committee on the 1914 Act, and I hope that he will be able to indicate which particular Welsh authorities will be designated lead authorities. We argued in Committee—but not today because the argument was concluded in Committee, if not in our favour—that every local authority should act as those authorities dealing with the Welsh church fund moneys.
My first point is one of definition. Page 38 of the 1914 Act, at line 24, uses a word that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) asks to be interpreted by the Minister—"eleemosynary". The "Oxford English Dictionary" indicates that it pertains to alms giving. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower points out that one of the Bronte sisters wrote that
eleemosynary relief never yet tranquillised the working classes.
It seems that operation of the 1914 Act is important to not just the working classes but everybody in the Principality.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs conducted an investigation only last year into the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments. I remind the Minister that it indicated that the Welsh Office should consider how the funds could be restructured on a more equitable and consistent basis for transferring them to the proposed unitary authorities. The Government replied:
Each county council?—
or leading authority, as it will now be—
is required to administer its Welsh Church Act fund in accordance with a scheme which sets out the charitable and other purposes to which the Fund's property will be applied. Each scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State. The Department is not aware of any instance of a council failing to comply with the provision of its scheme but, in the light of the Committee's concerns, it proposes to invite the Charity Commissioners to review the administration of the Funds to see what improvements may be made.
It would be a good idea for the Government to undertake a consultative exercise and to make recommendations to lead authorities as to how best the 1914 Act could be operated in some instances. In some parts of Wales it works extremely well, but in others, not so well. I will be grateful for the Minister's comments.

Mr. Rowlands: I remind the Minister of the role that the Welsh church funds have played in Mid-Glamorgan, in supporting and upholding the fabric of many chapels and churches in our communities and of the rightful necessity


for that work to continue. If the Minister is to establish lead authorities, I hope that one of them will be really representative of the valley communities and that the funds' representation will not be centred on Cardiff. I hope that the Minister will now give the assurance that I sought in Committee.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I recognise the aspirations of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and there is considerable merit in his comments. I shall see what we can do to achieve that which he seeks.
As to lead authorities, I remind the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that I made him happy, but upset my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), by suggesting that the lead authority for Gwent would probably be Torfaen, on the basis that the computers are currently located there and the administrative arrangements are already to hand. However, our arrangements will ensure that all 22 authorities will fully participate appropriately in the administration of the church funds.
I am advised that the word identified by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) means the relief of the poor.
As to the point about restructuring, which was raised in the Select Committee report, we referred the matter to the Charity Commissioners. The hon. Member for Torfaen suggested consultation, and there is merit in that. That is something that we should examine, but not in the course of local government reorganisation. I am aware that the Wales Council for Voluntary Action has also made worthwhile suggestions about what might be done with the church funds, but those are all matters that we should consider later.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 38, line 2, after 'whose' insert 'designated'.

No. 69, in page 38, line 4, after 'whose' insert 'designated'.

No. 70, in page 38, leave out line 20 and insert
?designated" means'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 54

CONSEQUENTIAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 42, line 16, leave out from 'council' to end of line 17 and insert
'or other public body or to the Residuary Body;'.—

No. 72, in page 42, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 43.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 56

LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 44, line 13, after '54', insert
'or (Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.)'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 57

MODIFICATIONS ETC. OF LOCAL ACTS AND INSTRUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 45, line 5, after '54', insert
'or (Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.) (a "modifying order")'.

No. 107, in page 45, line 6, leave out 'section 54' and insert 'modifying'.

No. 108, in page 45, line 27, after '54', insert '(Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.),'.

No. 109, in page 45, line 38, leave out
'an order under section 54'

and insert 'a modifying order'.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Clause 62

REGULATIONS, ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 110, in page 49, line 31, leave out '32(1) or 33(1)'.

No. 111, in page 49, line 35, leave out 32(1), 33(1),'.

No. 73, in page 49, line 41, after 'State' insert
'or (as the case may be) the Lord Chancellor'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Clause 65

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC

Amendments made: No. 112, in page 51, line 2, leave out '1,' and insert 1(1), (2) and (7),'.

No. 75, in page 51, line 2, after '54' insert ?(Magistrates' courts, justices of the peace etc.),'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 1

THE NEW PRINCIPAL AREAS

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 52, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.

No. 77, in page 52, line 40, column 2, after 'Monmouth' insert
?together with (from the district of Blaenau Gwent) the community of Llanelly'.

No. 78, in page 53, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.

No. 79, in page 53, line 7, at end insert—


?Powys Powys
The districts of Montgomeryshire, Radnorshire and Brecknock, together with (from the district of Glynd?r) the communities of Llanrhaeadrym-Mochnant, Llansilin and Llangedwyn.'.

No. 80, in page 53, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9.—[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Schedule 1

THE NEW PRINCIPAL AREAS

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 54, line 27, column 2, leave out
'but excluding the community of Llanelly'.

No. 82, in page 54, line 38, column 2, leave out
'and the community of Llanelly from the county of Gwent'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 2

PROVISIONS APPLYING TO PRESERVED COUNTIES

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 56, line 34, leave out 'The provisions of' and insert 'In'.

No. 84, in page 56, line 35, leave out from 'areas)' to end of line 38 and insert in paragraph (a), after 'county' insert 'in England' and after that paragraph insert—
(aa) every preserved county in Wales;".

(2) In section 4 of that Act (petty sessions areas), after subsection (1) insert—
(IA) In subsection (1) above, any reference to a non-metropolitan county is to be construed, in relation to Wales, as a reference to a preserved county.

(3) In section 19 of that Act (general provisions as to magistrates' courts committees), in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), after "county" insert "in England", and after paragraph (b) insert—
(bb) every preserved county in Wales;".

(4) In section 70 of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" insert—
preserved county" has the meaning given by section 63 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;".

The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)

—(1) In section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (issue of summons to accused or warrant for his arrest), in subsection (8) after "county" insert "in England, any preserved county in Wales".

(2) In section 2 of that Act (jurisdiction to deal with charges), in subsections (1) and (3) after first "county" insert "in England, a preserved county in Wales" and after second "county" insert ", the preserved county".

(3) In section 3 of that Act (offences committed on boundaries etc.), in subsection (4) after "county" insert "in England, any preserved county in Wales".

(4) In section 150(1) of that Act (interpretation), after the definition of "prescribed" insert—
preserved county" has the meaning given by section 63 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994;".'. — [Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 3

ESTABLISHMENT OF PRINCIPAL COUNCILS

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 59, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
'9.—(1) In this paragraph "council" means a county or district council which ceases to exist on 1st April 1996 by virtue of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
(1A) No election of councillors of a council shall be held after 31st December 1994, except—

(a) to fill a casual vacancy in the office of councillor of that council where before 31st December 1994—

(i) the office has been declared to be vacant; or
(ii) notice of the vacancy has been given under section 89(1) of this Act; or

(b) where the number of casual vacancies in the office of councillor of a council occurring after 31st December
1994 exceeds half of the total number of such offices.

(2) Any such councillor holding office immediately before 31st December 1994, or elected after that date to fill a casual vacancy, shall, unless he resigns his office or it otherwise becomes vacant, continue to hold office until 1st April 1996.
(2A) It shall not be necessary—

(a) to fill any casual vacancy in the office of councillor of a council occurring after 31st December 1994; and accordingly section 89 of this Act shall have effect with the necessary modifications in relation to any such vacancy; or
(b) to fill any casual vacancy occurring during March 1996 in the office of chairman or vice-chairman of a council.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 86 to 98, 113 and 114.

Mr. Jones: In Committee, I undertook to return at this stage with our proposals for the suspension of elections to casual vacancies. The amendment fulfils that commitment and confirms our preference for 31 December 1994 to be the cut-off date, except for circumstances described in the amendment. It also suspends the district council elections in 1995 and prolongs the mandate of district councillors.
Amendment No. 86 removes the provision relating to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941. It is no longer required because the Act has been repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1993.
Schedule 13 deals with the powers and administrative arrangements of the residuary body for Wales.
Amendments Nos. 87 to 93 represent minor drafting amendments to provisions that apply for other enactments to the residuary body in order for it to carry out its functions.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 98 are consequential amendments which have been necessitated by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill.
Amendment No. 95 is simply a technical amendment to clarify the wording of paragraph 46 of schedule 15, which itself amends section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not make any substantive change to the provision.
Amendment No. 96 is a technical amendment to paragraph 56 of schedule 15, which itself amends section 255(1) of the 1972 Act to take account of the new local government system.
Amendment No. 97 is a technical amendment to paragraph 17 of schedule 16, which amends section 39(1) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 to provide a reference to county boroughs in the definition of an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers.
Amendment No. 113 amends the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and ensures that an extant local government finance provision will apply to all the new authorities.
Amendment No. 114 is a technical amendment and clarifies an ambiguity arising from the current drafting of paragraph 19(2) of schedule 17.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to speak about this provision, because, as I see it, quite difficult complications could arise from the fact that after 31 December 1994 no casual vacancies can be filled in an authority that runs until 1996 as an operative authority. That could be the case in rural Wales, for example, where councillors might represent very large areas, but single-member wards, and have difficulty in getting coverage for such wards. It seems unlikely, but if half the councillors resigned, died or whatever, would all the empty wards come up together, or just a number to make it up to over half? The provision seems somewhat artificial, and I cannot see why it would not be possible for it to run through at least until a date in 1995 so that no one is left without representation at a time that is fairly critical to their futures.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) asks an important question, because, obviously, there are single-member wards 'as well as multi-member wards, and those vacancies could create a vacuum. I hope


that the Minister will accept the need to reply on that point, although in general the proposal is at least an improvement on what was offered in Committee—pushing the date forward.
Amendment No. 87 requires a little more comment than that made so far by the Under-Secretary. Most of the other amendments were aligned with other legislation, apart from that relating to by-elections. The amendment edges us one step further down the road of how to define the residuary body. It makes it look as though for some purposes—rather more than the Government have so far revealed—the residuary body will be defined as a non-departmental public body; in other words, it will be a quango. The amendment incorporates the right of the ombudsman to take up complaints against the residuary body. That right did not exist in Committee because of the Government's enthusiasm for trying to prevent the residuary body from being construed, politically or legally —I am not sure which—as a quango.
Obviously, the Secretary of State is anxious about his record. He wants to be known as a "quango buster", having realised that that might increase his popularity rating in Wales from 0 per cent. to 1 per cent., so he does not want to be seen to be creating any more quangos. Nevertheless, he is being pushed in that direction, probably by the advice that he is receiving. If the residuary body is to have the powers of the ombudsman made applicable to it by the amendment, it would probably be better to go the whole hog.
The Secretary of State will appoint the chairman and some of the members of the residuary body. If I recall correctly, the National Audit Office is to have access to its books—presumably, it will be listed in "Public Bodies", which is the bible of the quangos. "Public Bodies" is published and updated every year and gives the salaries of chairmen and members. In Committee, the residuary body was presented as having a curious undefined status, but a panoply of audit and examination powers and its responsibility to the House go with its being a quango. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will say that he accepts the case we made in Committee that the residuary body cannot be other than a quango, because there is no other category into which it fits.
The Government accept that case, functionally, through the taking up of complaints of maladministration and by stating in the amendment that the residuary body will be subject to the review powers of the ombudsman. It has been recommended that there should be compensation where maladministration is proved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will come clean and say that they are creating a quango, even if it has only temporary status.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I appreciate what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said about vacancies, especially in rural areas, but we feel that the cut-off date of the end of the current calendar year is an appropriate time to draw a line. The number of vacancies is not expected to be large, although we have put in that ultimate provision of one half of the vacancies in that most unusual—and I think almost impossible to envisage—circumstance. Recollecting what happened in 1973 and 1974, I think that it will suffice. Of course, the shadow councils will be

elected in April or May next year. They begin the work for the following year; in that way, they start subsuming activities. There must be some form of continuity there.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister implying that a councillor who has been elected to the shadow authority will have a right to attend meetings of either district or county authorities?

Mr. Jones: I do not expect councillors to have such a right, but I recall that, in the reorganisation of 1973–74, as a shadow councillor, I was invited to attend meetings of the council that was about to cease to exist. That may happen again. Nor do I expect shadow councillors to have powers under the existing councils, but I anticipate that, from the following year onwards, the shadow council will subsume the activities of the existing one.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentioned the residuary body. I did not think that my proposals needed further explanation: these are only minor drafting improvements, which do not affect the substance of the provisions as previously drafted. I hesitate to try to help him by giving a definition of quangos. Following yesterday's sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee, I know that his party is quango-mad—not least because of the number of representatives whom Welsh Labour councils appoint to their own quangos. The hon. Gentleman seems to define whatever he finds as a quango.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I must point out that he is treating the time that remains rather carelessly by being unnecessarily provocative.
The Secretary of State was entirely wrong to make the suggestion that he made yesterday. It showed a complete lack of understanding of the way in which local government operates with its representation on other bodies, which cannot possibly be equated with the quango state created by the Government. If the Minister reflects for a moment on the meaning of the acronym "quango", he will understand that he has misread the position.

9 pm

Mr. Jones: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Local electors, and some councillors, may wish to study further the quango appointments made by Welsh Labour councils. But the last thing that I want to do this evening is to be provocative, certainly towards the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11

WATER, LAND DRAINAGE AND COAST PROTECTION

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 100, line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 17.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 13

THE RESIDUARY BODY FOR WALES: CORFF GWEDDILLIOL CYMRU

Mr. Morgan: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 103, line 29, leave out 'nor more than 7'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 20, in page 103, line 30, after 'by', insert
?the principal councils in consultation with'.
No. 21, in page 103, line 32, leave out 'may by order alter either of the numbers' and insert
?may with the agreement of a majority of the principal councils by order alter the number.'.

Mr. Morgan: Although this is the final group of amendments, I do not feel that we can simply whistle through the provisions to which they refer. They relate to issues that I touched on briefly when discussing Government amendment No. 87, which provided a foretaste of the questions raised by the establishment of the residuary body.
We made certain demands in Committee. This is our first attempt to return to the theme in a big way, and our last opportunity to put right the difficulties encountered by the Government in their attempt to bridge the gap between the definition of quangos as quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organisations, or non-departmental public bodies which are listed in "Public Bodies"—an annual Government publication—and the definition to which the Secretary of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary are trying to extend it. They suggest that a quango is something that they define as a quango; a body created by local government could be a quango as well.
That is an absurd proposition, but it is very relevant to the amendments. Quangos are organisations that are listed in "Public Bodies", the Government's bible, because their chairmen are appointed by the Secretary of State and because various other provisions apply. Certain other bodies probably ought to be listed. Several hundred are included, but it clearly is not complete. Occasionally organisations "drop out", as happened with the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was removed about two years ago when it was deemed to be a commercial trading organisation.
What about the residuary body for Wales? We do not want that to be a quango in either function or name; we want it to be what the Government want to present it as. They may want to present it as not being a quango, but we want it genuinely not to be one. We do not want it to be completely under the control of the Secretary of State; we do not want the Secretary of State to determine the appointment of its chairman, its membership, its powers or the length of its life, or to be empowered to shrink, maintain or extend its powers.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State Henry VIII powers to extend the residuary body, terminate it and move it sideways, forwards, upwards and downwards. It is undoubtedly his creature. Given the way in which it is currently defined in the Bill, it will certainly be a quango —although the Government do not want it to be recognised as such. Our amendments seek to remove it from any such danger by giving the Secretary of State some powers, but requiring the exercise of those powers to be conjoint with those of the new principal councils.
This is, after all, intended to be the body that will deal with the property of the present quantum of local authorities in Wales, if it is determined—after the passage of the Bill, and by means of various orders and subsidiary legislation—that that property is not to be properly housed among the new authorities. Cardiff-Wales airport is the outstanding example. We are concerned that its future lies with the residuary body.

Mr. Redwood: I hope that the current owners of Cardiff airport will come to an arrangement on its future, which

could include private capital and a greater role for its management, which would solve the problem. If they do not, it will pass to the residuary body. I do not intend to split the shareholdings among all the new authorities that could have a claim. It is in the hands of local government, and I hope that it solves the problem.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful, in one sense, to the Secretary of State for his attempt to clarify the matter, although not for the content of his intervention. He is placing a sword of Damocles over local authorities. Democratically elected councillors on unitary bodies, who have spent countless time building and fighting for a financial commitment to Cardiff-Wales airport, are being told, "If you don't sell it, you certainly won't see the benefit of it afterwards." It will be placed under the dead hand of a residuary body which, without amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21, will be under the control of the Secretary of State.
In the next few months, those councillors will not be able to wait for an appropriate time to undertake the task that the Secretary of State has talked about of bargaining, on a willing buyer, willing seller basis, with private capital through privatisation, a management buy-out or the process that is sometimes known as Prescottisation—an option that the Opposition's employment spokesman adumbrated as an alternative to privatisation before the last general election, whereby private capital is used in transport projects to ensure that they are not restricted by the public sector borrowing requirement.
Such a process cannot be undertaken if it is known that the project must be shovelled off to management within 12 months rather than accepting more appropriate timing, which might be in the interests of the buyer, the investor, if it was taking a minority stake, or the seller—the three democratically elected councils of Mid, West and South Glamorgan. That is unsatisfactory because it puts all the pressure on the three Glamorgans to get shot of the airport now, even though they would receive a better price if the threat of placing it under the control of the residuary body were removed.
If the Government persist in that intention and cannot be dissuaded, we will face the problem of their in effect nationalising Cardiff-Wales airport. The Government are opposed to nationalisation, but that will be the result if the Bill is enacted and the Secretary of State executes his threatened action, because a satisfactory price will not be obtained by the three present owners with a sword of Damocles hanging over them, and control will pass to the residuary body—all of whose members will be provided by the Secretary of State—from the airport's municipal owners.
That would probably be the first nationalisation that the Secretary of State for Wales has undertaken. When he got home that night and told his wife that he had nationalised an airport in Wales, the dog would bite him. We are trying to get him out of that difficulty by asking him not to make the residuary body completely responsible to him for its membership and the power to terminate or extend its life. He should make it clearly a transitional body by means of which powers may be passed from one group of democratically elected councils to another group of democratically elected councils. The transitional bodies should contain a majority of democratically elected councils. That would be the solution and it would enable


the Secretary of State to avoid being bitten by his dog when he gets home after inadvertently nationalising Cardiff-Wales airport.
I ask the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to his future state of health, in relation to either his leg or his backside, and accept our amendments to the clauses dealing with the residuary body.

Mr. Rowlands: We cannot just nod through the clauses dealing with the residuary body without trying to discover a little more about the nature of the animal.

Mr. Morgan: The dog.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not know whether it will be of that character, but it will be an interesting animal.
The only precedents that we have for this type of body are the residuary bodies created under previous local government reorganisation in England on the break-up of the metropolitan authorities. I took the opportunity to look at the annual and final reports of a handful of residuary bodies to discover what sort of animal it is likely to be. I shall give the House the benefit of this modest degree of research.
Each of them turned out to be a huge property company. For example, the West Yorkshire organisation took over the powers of West Yorkshire metropolitan council. It took over about 28,000 deeds and 800 sites worth about £20 million, which it sold for £33 million, handing the distribution to the five district councils. At its peak, it employed 219 people, full time and part time.
That is one authority, dismantling one unit of local government and distributing the powers to five others. We are talking about a residuary body that will take over the surplus land of eight county councils and 36 district councils throughout the Principality. It will be one of the largest property companies in Wales. It will have enormous power. It will have the power to levy. However, one hopes that after the experience of the West Yorkshire organisation, the levies will be less than the distributed proceeds. The Secretary of State may nod his head. The reason for the success of the authorities at that time is that they coincided with the big property boom. The years 1986, 1987 and 1988 were a good time to get one's hands on property and then sell it off.
I do not think that the new residuary body will be operating in the same type of market. [Interruption.] I hope that it does not, because it would have a disastrous effect on inflation. I thought that the Government did not want a boom and bust economy. The Secretary of State seems to be backing a boom and bust economy. Is this another division between the Secretary of State and the Chancellor?
We are right to draw attention to the amazing character that the residuary body will have. It will be dealing with sensitive issues. I do not know whether, like the West Yorkshire authority and others, it will handle the pension funds for a time. I assume that it will not. I assume that it will take surplus revenues, as opposed to just surplus land and property, from every one of the existing district and county authorities. It will also have in its possession a large number of sensitive civic buildings that might be surplus to requirements. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has mentioned one. I am thinking of the Mid Glamorgan county council office. Will that be

taken over by a residuary body and sold off? Will we have a Greater London council re-run in the middle of Cathays park?
As I have said, we should not just nod this organisation through. I have a practical suggestion to make to the Secretary of State. I can see the need for an organisation, but I wonder why he needs to create something new.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has suggested one model that I suspect the Government will refuse. So why not use the Land Authority for Wales as the main body? If it is to be what I suspect, which is a five-year property company, why create a huge new organisation when there is in existence a rather successful and well-organised body? I should not really draw attention to it in case the Secretary of State decides to look at it. It was my creation and I am proud of it. Way back in 1974–75 it survived the abolition of the community land legislation. It has done a very useful job alongside the Welsh Development Agency. Why does not the Secretary of State use the Land Authority for Wales as the main vehicle for carrying out that function, given that, in many cases, it has created sensitive and good working relationships with local government? It will not be a completely new animal. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the model suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, but, assuming that the Government do not accept that model, perhaps the Secretary of State would consider the practical solution of using the land authority.
We shall be very interested; we shall watch with great care and scrutinise the new body, which will be an enormous property company, handling large numbers of parcels of land from the four corners of the Principality, at a time when it may not be the easiest thing in the world to sell that land and achieve values such as those obtained by the residuary bodies created under previous legislation.
9.15 pm
What will be the method of redistribution? How are the proceeds to be redistributed? It was not difficult for the property of the West Yorkshire body to be distributed among five district councils. In this case, the residuary body will be acquiring properties from 36 councils and eight counties and distributing them among 21—I cannot remember the exact number—unitary authorities. Will the method of distribution be related to the location of the land and property? Will the proceeds stay in the community, or will there be some form of pooling of the resources and an equalisation of the distribution of proceeds? Those are big and serious issues of public policy and before we nod the body through, we ought to find out a little more about the Government's thinking on it.

Sir Wyn Roberts: We discussed the residuary body fairly extensively in Committee. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) argues that it is a quango, but it has many of the characteristics of a local authority for the simple reason that it has to take over local authority contracts, deeds and so on.
We certainly do not accept that it would be right for the new councils to appoint all the members of the residuary body or for there to be no limit on the number of members, as the amendments suggest, for the following reasons. Of course, the body will at times have to take difficult decisions on competing claims for an asset, for example, or on whether an asset is surplus. If all the members were


appointed by councils, it could give rise to conflicts of interest. That is therefore one of our objections to the proposals in the amendments.
The residuary body will have limited functions and, indeed, a limited life. It will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the transfer of property and the disposal of surplus assets. It would certainly make the body unwieldy if we had rather more than four to seven members, which we think would suffice. Having said that, we do not want the residuary body to be dominated by councillors, as proposed in the amendments. My right hon. Friend is open to suggestions—without commitment, of course—as to the membership. He is quite open to any suggestions from local authority associations or individual councillors, as well as from hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised a specific point about the disposal of assets, and especially of proceeds. The proceeds will go to the new local authorities which have taken over from those authorities whose assets have been sold. Therefore, in the hon. Gentleman's words, the proceeds of the assets will stay in the area served by the authority from which the assets have been sold.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister of State said that the residuary body had some of the characteristics of a local authority because it would oversee some local authority contracts, but he omitted to mention that it would have one characteristic which is definitely not shared by local authorities: none of its members will be elected. That is a significant distinction which he chose to slide over rather quickly. Perhaps an authority with no councillors is the ideal Tory authority of the future.
The Minister of State also said, incorrectly, that the residuary body would have a limited life. If he reads the small print, he will find that the Secretary of State can extend or shorten its life as he wishes. The Secretary of State has Henry VIII powers to do as he wishes. He could, for example, decide to wait for a property boom. The Minister implied that it could be wound up neatly and that the danger of putting so many powers in the hands of the Secretary of State was therefore far less significant than it really is. The Secretary of State's powers in respect of the residuary body are almost infinite. We are not happy about the way in which it will operate, despite the olive branch so characteristically offered by the Minister of State.
This may be my last opportunity to pay my respects to the remarkable actuarial parliamentary longevity of the Minister of State, so I do so now. His record for holding the same office without being sacked or promoted is similar to the record length of time it took for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 to pass through both Houses of Parliament. He and I share the latter record, so we can both appear in the "Guinness Book of Records". The Minister is known throughout the land for his ability to plough indomitably through his briefs and, if he is retiring shortly, I am sure that he has been offered the life presidency of the Freedom from Dyslexia Association. We look forward to the Minister's return to commercial television, the world from which he came. He would be the ideal host for a game show such as "The Price is Right" in Welsh, but I am sure that he will find suitable cultural pursuits. In any event, we shall miss his contributions enormously.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 107, line 43, leave out from '17.' to end of line 45 and insert

'The Residuary Body shall be included among the authorities to which the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 applies.'.

No. 88, in page 109, line 9, leave out 'enactments to' and insert 'circumstances in'.

No. 89, in page 109, line 38, leave out from '(1)(b))' to 'and' in line 40 and insert
?and 443 (local authority contributions to mortgage costs);'.

No. 90, in page 109, line 42, at end insert—
'. The Residuary Body shall be treated as a housing authority for the purposes of sections 444, 452 and 453 of the Housing Act 1985 (provision in connection with local authority mortgages).'.

No. 91, in page 110, line 1, leave out from '88)' to end of line 2 and insert
'(retention or resumption of land required for public purposes)'.

No. 92, in page 110, line 21, leave out 'Section MA of and insert
'Paragraph MA of Schedule 2 to'.

No. 93, in page 110, line 21, after '1971' insert '(official pensions)'.—[Mr. Redwood]

Schedule 15

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF THE 1972 ACT

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 118, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.

No. 95, in page 119, line 43, leave out from 'for' to 'whom' and insert
council of the district" substitute "local authority to'.

No. 96, in page 121, line 15, at end insert—
'. In section 255(1) (transfer of officers), for "27, 28 or 29" substitute "28, 29 or 29A".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 16

OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 124, line 27, leave out from 'powers"' to end of line 28 and insert
'for "or county council" substitute ", county council or county-borough council".'.

No. 98, in page 133, line 17, after second 'council' insert
'or a police authority established under section 3 of the Police Act 1964'.

No. 113, in page 142, line 46, at end insert—
?. In section 88(2) of that Act (councils to whom transport grants may be paid), after paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) a county borough council,".'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Schedule 17

SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 114, in page 152, line 8, leave out 'that Act' and insert 'the Act of 1980'.—[Mr. Redwood]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Sir Wyn Roberts.]

Mr. Alex Carlile: The process leading to Third Reading began a long time ago, before the beginning of this parliamentary Session. Indeed, it was as long ago as 1992 that we heard from the then Secretary of State that local government in Wales was to be reformed. At that time, all parties shared a common purpose, which was to bring unitary local government to Wales. The then


Secretary of State made a declaration which, if not full of eastern promise, was certainly full of western promise. The declaration promised the people of Wales unitary local government based on natural communities. In the event, some natural communities, such as Merthyr Tydfil, Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire, are to have unitary local government, but others are not.
The history of the Bill will be viewed with interest by Welsh political historians. There are not many serious broken promises in Welsh political history which one can nail and which leave one bemused when one analyses why they were broken. One of the most significant promises that has been broken in Welsh political history is what will be known as the Llanfechain promise: the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), promised without equivocation or ambiguity that there would be a unitary Montgomeryshire. We have never had an explanation as to why that promise was broken. We have never been told the history of how the change of mind came about. We have never been given a proper insight into the thought processes of the Welsh Office and its Ministers.
At the last gasp, the Local Government Commission for England—the Government appear to accept this—proposed that Rutlandshire, Huntingdonshire and six other authorities smaller than Montgomeryshire in population should have unitary authority status. That decision is entirely consistent with the Secretary of State's views as declared in a Conservative party conference speech, of which he reminded us yesterday.
Earlier, the Under-Secretary of State was asked why what is good enough for Rutlandshire, Clackmannanshire and Huntingdonshire was not good enough for traditional communities in Wales. He did not give us an answer. I hope that in the last breath of the Bill in this House we shall be given a ministerial answer to that question.
In 1992, I thought that we would see an improvement in local government in Wales based on consensus. I am grateful for the support that Montgomeryshire has received from right hon. and hon. Members in all parties: the two Tory rebels in Committee, the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley); the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who has equal cause for complaint with myself; and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who from an early stage made it clear that the Labour party would support unitary status for Montgomeryshire. Despite what was said earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Caerphilly has been entirely consistent in what he has said and done, and he deserves praise for that.
Unfortunately, those of us from Montgomeryshire, including the hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Brecon and Radnor, will leave the Bill with a deep sense of disappointment. There was a great opportunity to do what was originally promised, but that promise has been broken, leaving us with a sense of deep frustration. I can only express the fervent hope and expectation that one day in the not too distant future we shall return to this issue and I shall be here to see Montgomeryshire restored as a council.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Sadly—or perhaps happily, in view of the late hour tonight—I was unable to be a member of the Committee. I had hoped that the Government would listen to all the members of the Committee representing Welsh seats on at least two major issues, the first being of importance to the whole of Wales and the second of great importance to the people of an area in my constituency, Llangollen.
The first issue is the lack of any provision for an all-Wales elected tier of government. The creation of unitary authorities makes almost no sense without a regional tier of government. Only a panoply of quangos of one sort or another can provide the services that need to be provided on a strategic basis. It is hardly surprising that the Government should set their face against any increase in democracy, however, as it is far easier to place stooges on quangos than to win elections in Wales, at any rate for their party.
The other issue that has not been dealt with is the placing of Llangollen in the new Denbighshire authority, against the wishes of its people as expressed in the referendum organised by Glyndwr council, of which Llangollen is a part. To set the record straight, the result of that referendum—without rounding up or down—was, on 68 per cent. of ballot slips returned, 58 per cent. in favour of Wrexham and only 42 per cent. in favour of Denbighshire. I remind the Government that they have been governing—I use the term loosely—for 15 years on much less than that majority, even if one measures the vote as a percentage of the total electorate, which seemed to be the Minister's response in Committee.
The Minister of State put forward another strange argument in Committee when he said:
As Llangollen and the other two areas belong to the old Denbighshire area which we are reviving and there is no clear majority against joining the new authority, we should let matters stand."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 April 1994; c. 155.]
The Minister was, to say the least, confused with that argument since Wrexham was also part of Denbighshire prior to 1974.
Hiding behind the decisions of the three community councils involved does not hold water either. The biggest —Llangollen town council—is now overwhelmingly in favour of Wrexham, and Llangollen rural district council's decision against was six to three, which is roughly the same proportion as Glyndwr's referendum of all residents. Llantysilio has at least been consistently opposed to Wrexham, although it clearly does not represent the views of those polled throughout Llangollen.
Glyndwr has also had a chequered history on the subject, voting only on the casting vote of the chairman to opt for Denbighshire and ignoring its referendum. The chief executive, Mr. Julian Parry, who now writes criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for some extremely minor errors of little consequence in Committee, and is militant in his ignorance of the referendum result, advised Glyndwr council as follows at its policy and finance committee on 23 June 1992:
Being south of the Llantysilio mountains/Horseshoe Pass, there is little community affinity or interaction between this area and north Glyndwr, local communities look to Wrexham as their main centre for most goods, services and employment, the existing pattern of communications and the geography/ topography being important relevant factors. The 3


town/community councils would prefer to remain part of a rural unitary authority rather than joining the new Wrexham unit. Whilst respecting this expressed preference, application of the relevant criteria results in your Sub-Committee recommending that this area has decidedly stronger relationships with Wrexham than with West Clwyd.
I could not have put it better myself and I wonder how Mr. Parry thinks that things have changed in the interim.
The people of Llangollen feel let down: they have voted and nothing has happened. Now we hear that the local government boundary commission for England is to mount an in-depth consultation with English residents over its review. Surely the same could be done for Wales. In any event, I hope that the anomaly of Llangollen can at least be put right, or the people of Llangollen will once again feel let down by this Government. Judging by the European election results in Wales, they feel let down in every other respect as well.

Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will not mind—we have shared their hurt and disappointment in Committee and on Report—if I say that at least the Bill is better in one respect than the Bill that started out. It is a better Bill in respect of schedule 1, part II page 53 where, under the title "County Boroughs", the "district of Merthyr Tydfil" is listed. It would be wrong not to recognise the significance and importance of that change.
I first came to the House in 1966. As a young, green and inexperienced Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in 1969, I wandered into the terrible world of local government reorganisation, when we attempted to introduce a unitary authority and found that we offended almost everyone on our own side, let alone the then Conservative Opposition Members. We therefore had to be man enough and sufficiently principled politicians to withdraw those proposals in 1969–70.
I was out of Parliament for a brief time, but returned at the tail end of a local government reorganisation measure to see the proud county borough status of Merthyr Tydfil removed by a Conservative Government with the Local Government Act 1972. It is a privilege to be still here 22 years later to get to my feet on Third Reading of the present Bill and talk about the restoration of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.
I must break it ever so gently to the Secretary of State that I suspect that he will not get too much of the electoral credit in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for the change. On the basis of the enormous achievement of Glenys Kinnock in the European elections—which I am sure will be repeated in the national elections—I doubt whether the Secretary of State will reap too much electoral benefit from the change. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to say that we were glad that he was a listening Secretary of State, at least in this respect. He has created a county borough which I believe will take the full opportunity of being a unitary authority and will regenerate and redevelop a community in a manner which I hope will be as colourful as in the past. Therefore, I can at least welcome that part of the Bill which recognised the spirit and character of the county borough of Merthyr Tydfil.

Mr. Llwyd: First, may I echo the words of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? I know that it was a great deal of hard work by the hon. Gentleman which brought about the change of heart by the Government, and I congratulate him on his success. I wish that that could also have been the case for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and for myself, but it was not to be.
I also add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) in congratulating the Minister of State on his service to the House in his present capacity. I am sure that we will all join in congratulating him if it is true that this evening is his final evening at the Dispatch Box.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and of course I relish the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. Were not it for the matter of time and of delaying the House, I would have risen to respond to the hon. Gentleman. I must tell hon. Members that I have made no statement whatsoever about any impending retirement.

Mr. Llwyd: I do not wish to be niggardly, but I was going to couple that with a few remarks. I was going to say that, during his happy days of retirement—thinking of poetry and poets and possibly sitting on a river bank, fishing—the Minister might recall several questions which I put to him during discussions on the Bill which he has not yet answered.
On a serious note, the first flaw which my party sees in the Bill, as was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), is that there is no strategic all-Wales tier of government. My party makes no pretence. It wishes to see a fully fledged Parliament in Wales with tax-raising and legislative powers. But even in the terms of the amendment which was the subject of the debate, it would have been a great step forward. It would have halted the proliferation of quangos in Wales and would have given accountability in a true sense.
It is a matter of some regret that the amendment was not carried in Committee or on Report, but it was the initial response of my party and it remains our main response. There should have been an all-Wales, truly democratic tier responsible for strategic matters in Wales.
There are numerous questions that have not been answered which I believe should have been. I am afraid that there are many flaws in the Bill. One that comes to mind is the absence of strategic planning, about which numerous bodies of professional and expert opinion are concerned. But I shall not go over the same old ground, as we have debated that matter this evening.
A further flaw may be the lack of cohesion, on unitary development plans, among unitary councils. Area committees may be a poisoned chalice—we do not know, and we are quite unsure about many matters to do with them.
I must say, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that earlier today I put to him five specific points about redundancy, TUPE and transfer generally. I have not had one reply. I regret that bitterly because at least one of those matters was put to me by council advisers in Wales. It was of the utmost importance that those matters should have received a reply and I deeply regret the fact that they have not.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I had a great deal of ground to cover, but I was under the impression that I had given at least a framework of an answer to the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. I shall, however, look carefully at what I said and, if points are still outstanding, I shall write to him.

Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the Minister. It may assist him to know that those points were raised towards the beginning of my speech. I am not trying to score points. I sincerely asked for answers and should be grateful for them in due course. Many thousands of people in Wales are extremely concerned about the position.
I still have misgivings about voluntary organisations, which have lobbied hard and are concerned about their futures under the present set-up. I moved an amendment in Committee to deal with that point and I am far from assured that their futures are guaranteed in any shape or form. Likewise, many people have contacted hon. Members on both sides of the House about support for the arts. There is little comfort for them, either.
Earlier today, I mentioned the role of community councils. I was reassured in part by the Under-Secretary of State and I sincerely hope that, in due course, the guidance to unitary authorities will include specific provision on the matters incorporated in an earlier amendment.
I feel extremely sad this evening at the loss of Meirionnydd, where seven centuries of government have gone by the board. The same applies to Montgomery, with which we are good neighbours. Both are proud communities which respect their traditions and have a great deal of cultural integrity. I am sure that they will be grossly disappointed at what has been transacted this evening.
I have said before and shall say briefly again that the Bill does not have the consensus of the Welsh people. In those circumstances, it must be wrong. To be workable, it must have the consensus of the people of Wales. After all, it is designed to deliver services to them. It does not have that consensus for many reasons, some of which I mentioned earlier. The Bill is flawed and I echo the words of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery: I honestly believe that we shall shortly be back here discussing local government again.
I conclude with a point of particular concern to me—the maxim, "Tra mor tra Meirion", which will doubtless be referred to again. We in Meirionnydd have stood the test of time and I shall stand up in this Parliament or, I hope, one nearer home, and look at the matter anew in the not too distant future. The people of Meirionnydd will not allow 700 years of their proud history to be done away with at the whim of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Ron Davies: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be interested in my first point. The Minister of State has vigorously denied the comment in this morning's Western Mail prophesying his retirement. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has penned a word for him, which the Minister of State, even if no one else on the Government Bench, will appreciate:
Mae Wyn wedi mynd and ddim wedi trigo; dim ffws, dim ffwdan, heb ddagrau, heb ei gof.
It means, "For the very good of the Minister; the Minister is going, no fuss, no fuss."
If the Minister is to retire, we shall miss him for his personal qualities and his decisive approach in Committee.

There were many occasions in Committee when he was having difficulty discussing the arguments that we made to him and he invariably started his remarks by saying, "Well, I should think", or "Well, I would imagine". He had a couple of variations. He sometimes used to say, "Well, off the top of my head", or, "I will consider that point and reply in a moment." He never did reply, of course. There was one marvellous moment when we were debating what has become known as the "Powys pudding". When he was referring to the Government scheme for area committees, he said, "Those are the areas that we want to pacify." He was referring to those five districts of mid-Wales.
I take the opportunity to thank my Front-Bench colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Tor hyphen faen, as it has now become known as a result of the passage of the Bill. I also thank my Back-Bench colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) who, at an early stage in the proceedings, managed to achieve a richly deserved prize as a result of the diligent campaign that he waged on behalf of his town of Merthyr Tydfil. We all appreciate that he was not exactly striving for his political life. He has something in the order of a 30,000 majority and, dare I say it, even if he had lost the battle he would still have won his seat, although with a perhaps slightly reduced majority, at the next general election.
We are on Third Reading. It is the end of the Commons stage of the Bill. There is only one conclusion that I can reach, however: it is an unacceptable Bill. It has been passed by what I consider to be a completely unsatisfactory Commons procedure and it has been piloted—if that does not give rise to a contradiction in terms—by Ministers of whom the best that I can say is that they were wise enough not to stray too far from their civil service briefs.
The central criticism of the Bill is that it did not create a Welsh assembly and our own tier of government. That, I believe, must be the starting point of reform of Welsh government.
The Bill was not based on any principle. There was no meaningful consultation with the people of Wales or with Welsh local government. The Bill certainly did not build on natural communities, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said. The local authority structures, the boundaries and numbers, were arbitrary, taken out of the air, changed from week to week, from year to year. Councils expressed the clearest outrage against the Bill, although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State managed to say, "I am right when I say that we have received few objections to our proposals for Rhondda- Cynon-Taff'. All that I can say is that he could not have listened to what we were saying. There was absolute outrage in those communities, yet the Minister has ignored them. There has been, as late as last night, a complete rejection of our new clause 11, which would have restored some element of democracy to local government reform.
The Bill is a shambles. It took years in preparation, with all the consultation, yet amendments have fluttered down on it like confetti. There were dozens of amendments in the Lords and what seemed like hundreds of Government amendments in Committee. We have had dozens of amendments on Report; whole clauses have been put into the Bill in the past 24 hours; whole clauses have been taken out of the Bill, almost at random. We have had tonight a massive change in the Government's policy on area committees, reducing by 50 per cent. the threshold that was


necessary. Whatever else it does, it does not show that this is a thought-out piece of legislation, designed to improve government in Wales.
At the end, there are enormous areas of uncertainty. Area committees and staff transfer are unclear. There is an enormous centralisation of power in the Welsh Office—44 new powers are conveyed to the Secretary of State. We have a new super-quango in the residuary body. The Bill is not for local government; it undermines local government and it has enormous implications for service delivery. It was opposed by 32 of 36 Welsh Members of Parliament.
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for his words of thanks to myself and my colleagues. If it has done one thing—and the Government should take note of this—the Bill has ensured that Members of Parliament representing Wales have started to identify a common enemy. We, I think, have learnt that we have a common interest, and a common interest that is not shared by the Conservative party. I hope that that kernel of trust and common working will bear greater fruit in the years to come.
The Bill has been carried on the basis of English Members of Parliament, and of Standing Order No. 86. It was a packed Committee, but the only meaningful change it made has been reversed on the Floor of the House tonight. What price democracy?
The Bill will be costly and it will cause great uncertainty. When it is enacted, all Opposition Members must ensure that it becomes the starting point of a process of reform of Welsh local government, not the end. We will need a new settlement for local government. We will also need a new contract between local government and central Government, which must be based on removing the shackles on local government, of restoring its independence, of recognising the plurality that exists in our public institutions and of understanding that local government exists both to represent the people of its areas and to improve the quality of life.
Above all, we must restore those things that are lacking in Welsh public life—openness and honesty. There must be confidence in the view that there can be democratic control of public affairs and that people can be trusted to run not only their own councils but their own country.

Mr. Redwood: I thank all those who have contributed to the making of the Bill—hon. Members, local councillors and their officers, organisations and individual members of the public. A great deal of attention has been paid to the Bill and it is the better for that. Special thanks go to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for piloting the Bill through long hours of debate in Committee.
Local government should be government for local people by local people. The crucial decisions will be taken by the new shadow authorities that will be elected next May. Many of the points that Opposition Members wanted clarified are matters that should be decided by local people and we are giving them those decision-making powers. I believe that they have every chance of doing a good job.
The success of the venture rests on councillors and officers, old and new. I have concluded that the elections should be on 4 May 1995, the usual first Thursday in May for local elections and the day on which, in other circumstances, elections to the existing authorities would

have taken place. I believe that that will be welcomed by the political parties in Wales, which I have consulted on the issue.
The new authorities will need to recruit their chief officers as soon as possible to plan for the future. They will also need to establish small planning teams to prepare the new authorities' budgets and draw up their service delivery plans. Those people can be seconded from existing local authorities, which will no longer have the same need to plan for the future. Their service plans will set out what the authorities will do.
In this evening's debate we have seen again just how short of ideas and confidence in its own views the Labour party in Wales has become. Today's decision of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to nominate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and then to vote for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for the leadership of the Labour party—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's latter remarks have to do with Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Redwood: Those remarks are extremely important because it was a foolish decision by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It means that the policies that he has been advancing may be ditched by the new leader. It certainly means that the person whose job is on the line at the moment is the hon. Gentleman. He backed two horses in a three-horse race and hoped that the two horses would not notice that he had backed each of them. What will he say to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) when he next meets her—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I last intervened, I meant what I said. Will the right hon. Gentleman now get back to Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Redwood: I shall try to ensure that I meet your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Labour party's proposals have centred round the creation of an unnecessary tier of government in Wales —the assembly.Throughout our debates Labour Members have failed to come clean on whether they support their friends in the counties who want fewer, larger strategic unitary authorities, or their friends in the districts who want more, smaller unitaries. The hon. Member for Caerphilly never managed to assert his discipline over his own party around a single clear proposal for local government in Wales. Labour Members have attacked the Government's proposals from a whole range of contradictory directions in an attempt to conceal the absence of any thought-through alternative. They have the audacity to say in the House that they dislike centralising powers and duties in the Welsh Office, when time and again in Committee and on the Floor of the House they have demanded that I take more centralising powers and give greater clarity over things which local government should decide for itself.
Tonight we have seen a Labour party that could not even deliver a vote on the main boundary issue that was fiercely debated in Committee; a Labour party that could not keep its troops here for this Welsh business; a Labour party that has clearly decided that Wales does not matter or can be taken for granted. The vote on Powys shows that not even all the Welsh Labour Members stayed for that critical debate and Labour's total vote fell below the number of Welsh Labour Members of Parliament. What a disgrace


when we are told that this is a critical piece of legislation and one that the Labour party should have modified or removed from the statute book. The Labour party has failed tonight in a big way.
We shall carry our Bill. It is good legislation for Wales and it will produce much better local government for Wales. The Opposition are there in tatters behind the hon. Member for Caerphilly, but perhaps not for much longer because he has failed to deliver the vote and failed to deliver the goods and he has no idea how he would like local government in Wales to be conducted.
We have a vision, a view of better local government in Wales. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 20.

Division No. 264]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Faber, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Fishburn, Dudley


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Gillan, Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Baldry, Tony
Hague, William


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Harris, David


Bates, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Batiste, Spencer
Hendry, Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howarth, Alan (Strat?rd-on-A)


Booth, Hartley
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bowis, John
Jessel, Toby


Brandreth, Gyles
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brazier, Julian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bright, Graham
Key, Robert


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kilfedder, Sir James


Butler, Peter
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Carttiss, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Coe, Sebastian
Legg, Barry


Congdon, David
Lidington, David


Conway, Derek
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Luff, Peter


Cran, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
MacKay, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Malone, Gerald


Devlin, Tim
Mans, Keith


Dorrell, Stephen
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dover, Den
Merchant, Piers


Duncan, Alan
Mills, Iain


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moss, Malcolm


Evennett, David
Neubert, Sir Michael





Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Widdecombe, Ann


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wolfson, Mark


Sproat, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Stephen, Michael



Sumberg, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Sykes, John
Mr. Bowen Wells.


Taylor, Ian (Esher)





NOES


Barnes, Harry
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bayley, Hugh
Mackinlay, Andrew


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Madden, Max


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Morgan, Rhodri


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dafis, Cynog
Rendel, David


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Foster, Don (Bath)



Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE IN BOVINE ANIMALS AND SWINE

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4168/94, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandurri submitted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6th May, relating to intra-community trade in bovine animals and swine; and supports the Government's objective of ensuring that the rules protect the health status of the United Kingdom, and the Community as a whole, and sustain the United Kingdom's existing export market.

1992 BUDGET DISCHARGE AND FRAUD IN THE COMMUNITY

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 16th March 1994, relating to the discharge of the general budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1992 and of European Community Documents Nos. 6214/94, the Commission's report on the fight against fraud in the. Community in 1993, and 6214/94 ADDI, the Commission's report on its anti-fraud strategy and work programme for 1994; and strongly supports the Government's policy of securing sound financial management in the Community, including combating fraud against the Community's financial interests.—[Mr. Arbuthnot]

Question agreed to.

Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)

Mr. Michael Alison(Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
That the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
It may be recalled that when I moved a similar motion in 1990 in connection with the Care of Cathedrals Measure, I gave an undertaking to the House that a supplementary Measure would be brought before Parliament containing enforcement provisions relating to the procedures for the approval of works to cathedrals.
Both the Government and the national amenity societies were of the opinion that there should be statutory provisions preventing unauthorised works to a cathedral fabric, or, where such works had occurred, provisions requiring the fabric to be made good or reinstated without delay. The Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, which the House approved in 1991, contained enforcement provisions in respect of parish churches. Undertakings were given that similar provisions would be included in a supplementary Measure for cathedrals. The Measure before the House tonight honours that undertaking.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I have a specific question that he may be able to answer. Can he tell us whether churches that are neither parish churches nor cathedrals are covered in either this or the previous legislation? Bath abbey, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), is one such church, but there are others—important national churches. As far as I can see, they are not covered in the Measure, but they obviously need to be covered in legislation of some sort.

Mr. Alison: This may be a very short debate. If I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the relevant information at the end, I shall in any case ensure that he receives it.
As I was saying, the Measure honours the undertaking that I gave the House in 1991. It builds on the so-called visitatorial powers of the diocesan bishop which already exist in relation to his cathedral. The cathedral church is, of course, the seat of the relevant bishop. The Measure also includes a power for the court of the vicar-general of the province to issue injunctions or make restoration orders.
The enforcement provisions feature a two-stage procedure. First, the bishop will seek to remedy any apparent contravention of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 by private interview and, if he considers it appropriate, take action through a special visitation. Only if those procedures are unsuccessful will proceedings be instituted for the issuing of an injunction or the making of a restoration order in the court of the vicar-general of the province.
There has been further consultation with deans and provosts, and with cathedral administrative bodies, concerning the Measure. The general view was that enforcement provisions should be provided for, although the cathedral authorities do not believe that they would

themselves be likely knowingly to contravene the provisions of the 1990 Measure. The Department of National Heritage, English Heritage and the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England have also been consulted about the provisions, and are content with them. The Government have continued to attach importance to the legislation, and have taken an active role in pursuing the proposals. I am particularly glad of the supporting presence of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage to receive my appreciation and commendation of the interest that his Department has taken in the report.
Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn, in these contentious days for the Church of England, that there are some financial considerations to be taken into account. There has been consultation with the Church Commissioners and the central board of finance of the Church of England about the financial implications of the Measure.
The Church Commissioners' involvement arises because they have a general responsibility in respect of the expenses of bishops, including legal expenses. Under section 4 of the Measure, where legal proceedings are to be instituted against a cathedral authority the bishop must first inform the Commissioners, who will decide whether they would be prepared to meet some or all of the bishops' costs and expenses in respect of those proceedings. The provision builds on the statutory discretion that the commissioners already have in deciding whether to contribute to a bishop's costs in court proceedings under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. The commissioners and the central board are content with the proposed arrangements.
The Measure was given general approval in November 1992, and then went to a revision committee of the General Synod, which made a number of amendments. Final approval took place at the November 1993 group of sessions of the Synod, where the Measure was approved in all three Houses with only one vote against. As will be seen from the report of our own in-house Ecclesiastical Committee, that Committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The House is indebted to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who presented the Measure clearly and persuasively explained its nature. I do not think that any hon. Member will find it objectionable.
In this debate, we miss our former colleague, the late Bob Cryer, who, while not a church man, took a sensitive interest in church buildings and would have taken part in the debate if only to point out, as was his wont, that there are buildings of fine quality that are not part of the established Church. Nevertheless, he would have welcomed the Measure as it helps to maintain our generation's commitment to maintain that part of our heritage and to remedy the inadequacies of the previous arrangement and as it reflects the overwhelming, if not unanimous, view of the Ecclesiastical Committee, which deemed it to be expedient.
We are debating the Anglican cathedrals of England. The Measure should be passed to maintain the fabric of the Church and to prevent unauthorised and distasteful developments. Without the Measure, in these days when


market philosophies are all, it perhaps would be only a matter of time before someone equipped an Anglican cathedral with neon lights and sought to attract the attention of those who devote money to current fads, even if they are distasteful.
Prudence requires that a sensible, historically appropriate approach be taken to these buildings, which are not only important to the Church; some of our cathedrals are among the greatest buildings on the planet and our generation must understand that it has an obligation to maintain them.
Some cathedrals are of ancient origin and owe their construction to those who wished to express their religious beliefs and to worship and to offer gifts to God. The glories of our cathedrals were created by ordinary people, the skilled craftsmen of the day who toiled hard with few labour-saving devices to assist them. One would like to think that their motivation was not simply to practise the skills of their craft. They created buildings of enormous merit and the House should assist the Church to ensure their future.
Many of our cathedrals have stood for almost a millennium and deserve to stand throughout the next one. The House is right, therefore, to ensure that wise legislation is passed because the Church has much to do to serve the present as well as to maintain the glories of the past. I should like to think that the House will have sympathy with the Church in ensuring that its priorities are to those who work for it and who seek to represent its ideals in a society that is becoming increasingly pagan.
Cathedrals allow us to enjoy a little regional pride. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) is in his place. As a Yorkshire Member—I hope that, as another Yorkshire Member, the right hon. Member for Selby will agree—I believe that York is infinitely superior to Canterbury. It would be invidious, however, to mention York without mentioning Salisbury. If one mentions Salisbury, one must mention Durham and the cathedral at Lincoln, which has enormous architectural and historic significance. One could give other examples. All are important and enormously advantageous in providing an inspiration for our country, and we have an obligation not merely to serve the past but to maintain this vital part of our architectural, historic and religious inheritance.
In order to serve that heritage I hope that the House will approve the Measure. I hope that the reasons advanced by the right hon. Member for Selby were sufficiently persuasive to convince the House that the Measure is right and thus justify the decision of the Ecclesiastical Committee that it be deemed expedient.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: I, too, found the contribution of my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), to be a clear exposition of the need for this Measure. Although I know that it is not his debate, I am pleased to see in his place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage. If he chooses to make a contribution to the debate, I hope that he will respond to my concern about the cathedral repair grant scheme which, to a large extent, this Measure is there to regulate and enforce.
Perhaps uncharacteristically from the Opposition Benches, I should like to congratulate the Government on introducing the cathedral repair grant scheme a little over three years ago. I have consulted the Very Reverend John Southgate, the Dean of York, who until recently was the chairman of the Association of English Cathedrals, about how the repair grant has worked in practice. He has nothing but praise for the scheme. He said that English Heritage has handled it with care. As chairman of the committee, he has not received a single complaint and he pays special tribute to Jenny Page and Richard Halsey from English Heritage who have administered the scheme.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, our cathedrals are important as places of worship and as centres of excellence in music. Some of them are still important as centres of scholarship and learning. The library at York Minster is now the biggest privately owned theological library and the dean and chapter spend a great deal of money each year ensuring that the stock of books is replenished.
Along with parish churches, historic cathedrals are a unique part of our national heritage. They are large buildings of great age which are still in use today for the same purpose for which they were originally built. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth said, they are monuments to English craftsmanship through the ages. It is for those reasons—both Christian and secular—that they attract so much love and affection from the people of our country. York Minster attracts 2.25 million visitors a year. That is more than the Tower of London and considerably more than the Tate gallery.
Until three years ago when the repair grant scheme was introduced, the cathedrals were unique in another respect. They were the only great historic buildings that were not able to apply for grants for their repair, restoration and conservation. Perhaps I should declare an interest as York Minster is a grateful recipient of money from the scheme. This year it received just under £250,000 for work on the north-west tower. The grant does not replace local fund-raising, but it is an important supplement to it.
The contribution made by English Heritage to York Minster is towards a £3.5 million scheme of restoration for the south-west and north-west towers and the south face of the Minster. That restoration work will take seven to eight years to complete. There is the rub. The restoration will continue for many years to come, but the cathedral repair grant scheme is due to end at the end of next year, after it has run for five years. I am not making a special case for York Minster, because its applications should be judged against the needs of other cathedrals. Nor am I asking for increased annual spending on repair, restoration and conservation of cathedrals.
English Heritage is carrying out a needs assessment to assess the likely future repair costs faced by our great cathedrals. It will make a judgment on whether the current level of funding is appropriate or not and I am happy to leave that decision in its hands and to consider it when its report is published. However, I am asking for cathedrals to be treated in a similar way—not better and not worse—to secular buildings and parish churches. That means that the repair grant scheme must continue beyond the end of the next financial year because schemes to assist the conservation and repair of other secular buildings and parish churches will continue after that time.
One of the great benefits of the scheme has been that those responsible for the fabric of cathedrals have started


to plan their repair and restoration programmes ahead, instead of waiting for a crisis, such as the foundations to give way or the roof to cave in, to respond. That important forward planning could and would be lost if the repair grant scheme was to come to an end. I shall give briefly a couple of examples.
At St. Albans, a grant was given for the repair of the central tower. When they started the work, they found that the need for repair and the cost of the scheme was much greater than had originally been estimated. English Heritage was able to help by transferring a grant, which was scheduled for a future year for repairs to the nave, to finish off the repairs to the central tower. That ability to roll funding forward from one year to another will be lost if the repair grant scheme comes to an end. What would have happened if the work on the tower had been commenced next year, in the last year of the scheme? The scaffolding would have been up, the work would have commenced, the bills would have been rolling in and there would not have been a scheme to which to apply in future years.
Ripon, too, faced a similar hiatus when a contractor who was due to come on site suddenly let it down. Since the scheme had not reached its final year, English Heritage was able to roll the funding forward. The same happened at Salisbury when a new architect was appointed.
I am happy to congratulate the Government on introducing the scheme. It is a good scheme and it has worked well, but the question I put to Minister is, will the good work continue? If he speaks tonight, can he give an assurance to the House that the cathedral repair grant scheme will be rolled forward at least for a further five years?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Measure. It would be churlish not to, since, as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) rightly said, it had only one opponent when it went through the Synod. Incidentally, we have not been given the reason why the one person opposed it, but that certainly meant that it was a far less controversial Measure at all stages than many other things which go through the Synod. I note in passing that, today, there was another close vote in the Anglican Church, although not in England. The Church of Scotland voted to agree to women being ordained as priests, which is a decision that I welcome. It has followed the English example, which is, in this case, a better example than that of the Welsh, although the Welsh normally set very good examples.
I have three comments to make and they are made generally, although, of course, my interest is in South wark cathedral; a beautiful cathedral and the cathedral for the south bank of our capital city. My hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for Bath (Mr. Foster), have expressed their interest, too. I believe that the question that I posed earlier related to Bath, but there are certainly other buildings, such as Westminster abbey, which are neither one thing nor the other; neither parish churches nor cathedrals, which I assume are covered. That is why I raised the point with the right hon. Gentleman. However, it would be good to hear that, after the Measure is approved, Anglican church buildings are covered, which was its purpose.
I pay tribute to all those who do so such an excellent job in looking after our inheritance, which is what the cathedrals of England are. They are this country's great treasures, and some people give their lives to looking after them. I also pay a specific and timely tribute. My diocese is about to acknowledge the retirement of the Very Reverend David Edwards, who was at Westminster abbey and has had a distinguished career outside and in the House.
David Edwards retires formally at the end of August, but a farewell service is being held next week. Many people in this place remember with affection his time here. He has made great contributions to the Church of England, academically and in his writings as a historian, and in his last post he looked after a beautiful building and made it a vibrant centre for the church and non-church community. People certainly value cathedrals for their beauty and the tranquillity that they offer, but also because they play a role in the wider community.
I wish simply to put on record a second point, but it may elicit an answer. It appears that the Measure provides powers to deal with cathedral administrations that fail to look after their buildings properly. That is a good thing, but my concern is that sometimes it is not, technically speaking, the fabric of the buildings which, for understandable but mistaken motives, administrations may decide to treat wrongly.
I come from Hereford. One of the most controversial incidents for the Church of England and its cathedrals in the past decade was when the dean and chapter of Hereford cathedral decided to sell Mappa Mundi. Technically, it is not part of the fabric of the cathedral, but it is a Hereford cathedral creature. It was made in Hereford and was intended to be in Hereford since the 13th century. It would have been sold had there not been an outcry, and a building is now being constructed in Hereford to accommodate it properly. We have a duty to ensure that the fabric of our cathedrals is looked after by a policing management, but those of us who are equally concerned about the treasures in the cathedrals must find a mechanism to ensure that there is no danger of our suffering from the mistaken short-termism that drove the dean and chapter of Hereford to make a wrong but understandable decision. The national outcry proved how wrong that decision was.
I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for York (Mr. Bayley) about the beautiful cathedrals in Yorkshire. I am grateful that the Minister and his Department have become increasingly sensitive to the notion that it is vital for the state to take its share of responsibility for cathedrals. If it does not, we risk being unbiblical. We risk charging people to enter our cathedrals. In many places, that step is now unacceptably close.
It appears to be assumed that anyone going into a cathedral does so as a tourist and should therefore pay. Of course, the upkeep of cathedrals costs a great deal, and members of the church worldwide may feel an obligation to contribute if they can. However, increasingly the impression is being given that a person entering a cathedral has an obligation to spend money. That is entirely unacceptable, and I hope that the tendency will be resisted.
It is also unacceptable when the commercialism of cathedral merchandising operations trespasses increasingly on our worship and fails to remain well and truly outside the building. I seem to remember that Jesus had very clear views about money-changing in the temple. We are not far


from that in many of our cathedrals and cathedral premises now. I have made that view known with regard to my own cathedral, where I think the buying and selling should be done further away from the centre of the building, and not simply in the side aisle.
My point is that if the fabric and maintenance of cathedrals are funded properly, the pressure to be commercial can be resisted. If there is no security of funding, they are often driven, because of the need to maintain the fabric and contents, to do things that I think are increasingly inconsistent with their role as mother churches of the diocese for all the people—native and visitors—of the churches of England. I hope, therefore, that the Church will be continually vigilant and the state regularly generous, and that as a result we can have security for our buildings so that they can continue to serve the purpose for which they were so beautifully built.

Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I am grateful for the constructive and warm welcome which my colleagues have given to this limited but valuable Measure.
I appreciate the remarks made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), about the contribution that the Government—public finance—have made, and will continue to make, towards York Minister. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is on the Front Bench tonight, probably hesitated to intervene in the debate because the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman are not strictly within the ambit of the Measure—he might even be out of order if he

attempted to intervene from the Front Bench. However, I am sure that he will have heard the remarks made and the queries raised by the hon. Gentleman. One of us will communicate with him specifically to respond to the points made.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a couple of points. I promised that I would try to answer his first intervention. Despite the title that it bears, Bath abbey is a parish church and therefore is covered by the care of churches legislation. All other churches which are consecrated as parish churches are likewise covered by the existing church facilities which we debated and passed in 1991. Churches that are not strictly consecrated but are so-called dedicated—that could even include chapels in hospitals and such things—are subject to the faculty jurisdiction by the direction of the bishop. That just about encompasses all conceivable sorts of church buildings which might be relevant to the debate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Mappa Mundi, for example. I am glad to be able to tell him that the control mechanism in the Care of Cathedrals Measure which he and I debated and which was passed in 1990 covers not only fabric changes but the disposal by sale or otherwise of outstanding movables, to give them their technical term. So Mappa Mundi is subject to enforcement of that Measure.
Against that background, I hope that the House will agree to give a fair wind to the Measure tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Metropolitan Police (Firearms)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjoum—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important and topical subject of the arming of the Metropolitan police. I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for coming along tonight to give the Government's response. I am sure that his considered comments will create considerable interest.
Last month, Sir Paul Condon—the House will wish to congratulate the distinguished Metropolitan Police Commissioner on his knighthood—announced that his officers will in the future openly wear handguns on London streets in certain circumstances. I have carefully read through the resulting press coverage of that announcement, and I am astonished how inaccurate and exaggerated much of it was.
What the Home Secretary in fact agreed was that officers in armed response vehicles—ARVs—in London can wear their side arms in holsters at all times. Previously, they armed only when they reached the incident to which they had been called. They needed the permission of a high-ranking officer, who in practice had to be contacted via his bleeper at all hours of the day or night, before removing guns from a secure metal box in their car.
In London, officers in ARVs are dedicated to attending incidents in which firearms are being or may be used. Clearly those side arms will not be visible while jerseys are worn, but when officers are in shirt sleeves only, they will become visible in their holsters.
That is a comparatively small step, and is by no means unreasonable. The purpose of our brief debate, however, is to consider the arming of the Metropolitan police in a much wider context and over a longer time. Here I must express a long-held sense of unease, which I am confident that I share with many of my constituents in Bexleyheath, Welling and Barnehurst.
I will put my case in simple terms. I claim that during the past 20 years more weapons have been placed in police armouries. I claim that more automatic weapons have been given to the police, some with astonishingly high rates of fire. I claim that, if that trend continues during the next 20 years, the British police service—the Met traditionally sets the pace—will become much more like many of its European counterparts and many more police officers will carry weapons on duty, and perhaps even off duty as happens abroad. I claim that there is a certain ratchet effect. The decisions go in one direction, and it is very seldom reversed. Finally, I claim that that long-term trend, which has involved a number of Commissioners and Home Secretaries and is probably not supported by a majority of Members of Parliament representing London, is almost certainly not proceeding with the blessing of those people who pay towards the funding of the Metropolitan police, namely the people of London.
There are two basic approaches to the police carrying guns. There is that adopted in most states of the United States, where the police carry guns as a matter of routine and where many police patrols have considerable fire power at their disposal. I suggest that it becomes normal in such circumstances to cock guns and not to hesitate: too long before firing them. Then there is the approach adopted

in Britain and a few other countries, where the police go about their duties unarmed except for a truncheon. There are hosts of arguments to be deployed, but at the end of the day I am fiercely proud of the British approach and I speak tonight in favour of its being continued and not undermined.
There must be—and Parliament has seen to it that there are—very heavy penalties for criminals who go about their business carrying knives and guns. It follows that the courts must not hesitate to use the powers that they have been given when the facts have been properly established. That must be the starting point, rather than attempting to match weapon for weapon. At the same time, it is vital that it gets harder—not easier, as is the case now—for criminals to obtain guns in the Greater London area. There must be a crack-down on the number of arms imported into the United Kingdom. I am well aware how difficult that is to achieve. There must be a determined drive to find the weapons which are held illegally in our major cities, and they must be seized and destroyed. Perhaps more amnesties are called for. I suggest that at present too many firearms certificates are issued. In 1992, the Metropolitan police issued 9,427. I believe that they are far too easy to obtain.
Some years ago, I applied for a shotgun licence at a police station a few hundred yards from here at the request of a national newspaper. I was not examined as to why I needed a shotgun while living in London.
Winston Churchill wrote a wonderful description of the battle of Sidney street in the east end of London when he was Home Secretary. My hon. Friends may recall the superb remark of Balfour after Churchill was photographed risking his life at the scene. He commented:
I understand what the photographer was doing, but what was the right hon. Gentleman doing?
A detachment of 20 Scots Guards armed with rifles had been summoned to deal with three Russian anarchists after some policemen had been killed.
I suggest that the Army should be called in more often today when the authorities believe that rifles and sub-machine guns would be appropriate. By all means, let us match armed bank robbers with an armed response team. But if it is thought that the Provisional IRA or other terrorists are present, why are we so reluctant to call on the Army to support the police?
It is becoming commonplace when terrorists are being tried in London to watch on our television sets armed police on the rooftops near the court in those ridiculous baseball caps which are so fashionable among schoolboys, wearing body armour and carrying sub-machine guns, and perhaps rifles with telescopic sights. The serious point is that this does the image of the constabulary no good at all. I would take some persuading that sharpshooters serve any real purpose on those occasions. If they really are essential, why do we not use the snipers of, say, the Royal Green Jackets? The public understand that soldiers need to be trained in the use of sniper rifles, telescopic sights and night-firing aids, but does the same apply to Metropolitan policemen? The Army can offer a broad range of support to the Commissioner from, at one end of the scale, a Royal Military policeman with a revolver to those highly trained specialists of the Special Air Services so brilliantly sent into action during the Iranian embassy siege. I would put it to senior police officers that, just as the public were soured by the disappearance of the bobby on the beat in favour of high-speed patrol cars—a trend which happily is


being reversed—so, too, they are alienated by the regular sight on television of heavily armed police officers on our streets.
In a fine piece of journalism in The Times on 18 May, Simon Jenkins wrote that the police, who deserve every support,
would help themselves if they stopped calling press conferences … with photographs of policemen dressed as John Wayne, courtesy of Messrs Smith and Wesson and Messrs Heckler and Koch.
Senior police officers should appreciate that many Londoners would agree with that comment. The article continued, after referring to the criminals who import and sell cocaine and crack, by saying:
One country has wide experience of using a heavily armed police and paramilitary force to stamp out the cocaine trade. It is the United States of America. The result has been a disaster for the American police and especially for its relations with black people. Local police forces send one delegation after another to Britain to learn how we do it better.
Policemen to whom I talk seem divided in their views on that issue, but most do not want an armed police force. They feel that such a move would encourage criminals to carry arms, especially quick-firing weapons. They are not convinced that it would save police lives in the long run —we are all thinking of a particular tragic event. They remind me that not all police men and women are suitable for weapons training and that the equipment is expensive to buy and maintain at a time when money is scarce.
Problems also exist in the secure storing of weapons. Some police officers mention that, each year, a significant number of police officers in America are killed by their own weapons and that members of the public there are not infrequently injured when a shoot-out occurs, as happens all too often. Most of them know that fewer police officers in Britain are being assaulted each year, even if that fact is not known to the public. Last year, 3,370 London police officers were assaulted while on duty but five years ago the figure was almost 5,000.
In the real world, although more guns are being used in crimes—I gather that replicas are a particular problem—they are rarely fired at police officers. The figures are clear on that point. Police officers know that they are respected by the public because they are prepared to face danger unarmed. It is a tradition of which they can be proud. Some recall, too, the bad publicity that followed the police shooting of Stephen Waldorf. In a recent issue of the Police Review I came across a warning by Mr. Jim Sharpies, the Merseyside chief constable and chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Firearms Committee. He said:
Arming the police would mark an irreversible change which could have unknown implications for the service and the community. Such a move would have unpredictable effects. Would an arming of police … lead to an even greater carriage of arms by criminals? Would even more injuries and death ensue?
During my time as an infantry soldier I carried a weapon while on active service. My experience was that, even among the best trained soldiers, accidental discharges were bound to occur and preventing weapons from falling into the wrong hands, including those of children, was a constant problem. Police forces already have difficulties looking after their own weapons. The Times reported a few weeks ago that two loaded police handguns were found lying in a street in the centre of Blackburn, Lancashire,

after apparently falling from an armed response vehicle. A passer-by handed them in to the nearest police station. Think for a moment what might have followed had those loaded weapons come the way of one of Her Majesty's less well disposed subjects. My observation is that the more weapons are carried by the police, the more such incidents are bound to occur and the more people will suffer injuries as a result.
In a recent professional survey of police officers, paperwork and bureaucracy ranked higher than violence against the police. Nevertheless, I support refresher training in self-defence for police officers throughout their careers. I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that point. And protective vests should be more readily available. Few people object to police officers in the capital carrying the new-style baton, which is longer than the traditional wooden truncheon, while hoping never to be on the receiving end. Medical tests on devices such as pepper sprays must be speeded up. Perhaps my hon. Friend would comment on that, too.
While announcing in May a doubling in the number of London ARVs from five to 12, the Commissioner apparently said that the further carrying of guns by his officers would be "event driven". That odd phrase concerns me. It rather suggests the initiative being passed by the goodies to the baddies. Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State accept that if there are more armed robberies in the Metropolitan police area, the police will be bound to respond by carrying more arms? I hope not. I like to think that the Home Secretary has some over-arching strategy, and that the traditional character of British policing and its humane face will be enhanced. I like to think that if, in the next 20 years, the terrorist threat diminishes in Greater London—and there must be a good chance that it will—there will be fewer ARVs and fewer armed policemen as a result.
Police officers up to the rank of chief inspector are to be balloted about whether they wish to have the
right to carry firearms in the course of normal duties".
It is important that the Home Office's considered advice is well publicised in advance of that little referendum. The possible arming of the police will remain high on the political agenda.The basis of my brief submission is that Britain leads the world in community-based policing, and that that is helped by the lack of conspicuous weapons. We have a right to look to our Government to give a lead. I trust that they will continue to make clear their determined opposition to a general arming of our police forces, who at the end of the day do us proud.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on raising this important issue and I welcome an opportunity to explain to the House the recent changes that have been made and then to put them into context. I agree with many of my hon. Friend's sentiments. I also join him in congratulating the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on his knighthood.
My hon. Friend is right to assert that the changes recently announced by Sir Paul Condon are modest. However, he spoke of longer-term trends and extrapolated from that a gloomy picture for some years hence. I think that he strikes too pessimistic a note and I shall seek to reassure him by my remarks.
My hon. Friend also spoke about an amnesty for people who hold firearms illegally. I understand the attractions of that, but I am bound to tell him that, as I am sure he appreciates, it is a delicate judgment because, if one has an amnesty with any semblance of regularity, it allows a person to think, "Perhaps I shall wait for the next amnesty." Nevertheless, I understand his argument. I am bound to say, as I know that he appreciates, ihat the deployment of authorised firearms officers for whatever purpose—whether as sharpshooters, as he describes it, or as anything else—is an operational judgment for the chief officer, and in this case for the Commissioner.
Before turning to the specific question of the overt arming of some Metropolitan police officers, I shall explain the range of measures being taken to offer greater protection to the police. It is important to set the issue in that context because the recent changes spring solely from a desire to protect officers more effectively as they carry out their duties. The changes are not the first moves in a fundamental change to the style of policing in the Metropolitan police district.
The physical danger that police officers confront on behalf of the rest of us cannot, and should not, be forgotten, and my hon. Friend made the same argument. The tragic deaths of PC Patrick Dunn and Sergeant Derek Robertson in the past year have brought that home to all of us. The risk in policing cannot be removed entirely and there is no infallible protection available, but a great deal can be done, and is being done, through a range of co-ordinated measures.
The recent change which has precipitated the debate relates only to Metropolitan police officers in armed response vehicles—ARVs, as my hon. Friend called them —attending incidents at which armed officers are judged to be operationally necessary. ARVs carry carbines and sidearms and, until recently, the specific authority of a senior officer was required for either of those weapons to be removed from the locked box in which they are transported. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has recently agreed that, from now on, ARV officers in London can wear their sidearms overtly.
ARVs are usually on patrol so that they can be readily available should it be necessary to respond to a firearms incident. Where such an incident takes place, the ARV may be deployed either at the direction of a senior officer or on the initiative of ARV crew members who may observe an incident in the course of their patrol.
In London, ARV crews are deployed only where there is a perceived firearms or other lethal threat. It therefore makes sense for them to have the immediate capacity to defend themselves and others. The previous procedures, which involved retrieving weapons from the fixed locked box in the back of a fast moving vehicle, can be unsafe.
In operational terms, the handguns carried by ARV officers would be clearly visible only when they are in shirtsleeve order. My hon. Friend alluded to that. They will still require authorisation to remove their carbines from the locked box in the ARV.
Routine arming of the police is simply not the issue here —that would be a fundamental change to the style of policing. What is intended is that the police should be given the protection they need to do their job. Far from shifting towards routine arming of police officers, the Commissioner has said that the average member of the public will never see—unless he is travelling through

Heathrow airport—officers routinely carrying guns on the street. I am only sorry that media coverage following this recent change has given an impression to the contrary.
My hon. Friend suggested that the Army should be used at incidents currently dealt with by armed police officers. I am not persuaded of that. Of course, there have been and may again be particular incidents in which the expertise of the armed services are called upon. However, for the regular policing needs of London, the right response is from police officers who will be unarmed in the vast majority of cases, but who must, when operationally necessary, have access to appropriate firearms.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should keep a clear dividing line between the work of the police and the work of the Army. They have different jobs to do and different methods. One of the great strengths of British policing is precisely that the police are the police and the Army is the Army. We have always been careful not to mix them up. That is why I would not want the Army drawn into police work any more than is absolutely necessary, even if it were practicable to do so.
I hope that I have made it absolutely clear that we are not talking about routine arming or anything close to it. Although routine arming might, in some cases, assist morale, it will not often help against sudden and unexpected attack. In my view, routine arming does not have a realistic place in the balance that needs to be reached between giving proper weight to protecting officers against attack and protecting the character of policing in this country, of which my hon. Friend spoke.
The House may wish to know that the present number of authorised firearms officers in the Metropolitan police has decreased by almost 600 compared with the number of such officers in 1991. The number now is just over 1,950; in 1991, it was 2,583—hardly evidence of a move towards the routine arming of the police.
However, in responding to police anxieties about the dangers that the police face, we must not concentrate exclusively on the debate about arming. The risk of other, lesser assaults is much greater, as the figures show. In the past six years throughout England and Wales, four officers have been killed by firearms and about 50 more have been injured, the majority not seriously. Those figures can be set against annual figures for England and Wales of between 17,000 and 18,000 a year for all assaults on police officers, a little over 300 of which occurred in the Metropolitan police district. Incidentally, the figures for overall assaults have not risen in recent years—indeed, they have fallen slightly—although I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that they remain unacceptably high.
We believe that a great deal can be done to offer greater protection to police officers through a range of co-ordinated measures. The truncheon can be made more effective. A number of alternatives have been or are being trialled. The main trial is that of the expandable side-handled baton and we are providing technical support for that. Interim reports from those trials have been received and I understand that the results so far emerging are encouraging. This equipment greatly improves the confidence of officers and it also promises to be a highly effective tool of control and restraint. That is important in itself. Research recently carried out by the Home Office shows that one half of all injuries to officers are sustained while suspects are restrained. The results of the trials are now being considered by the Association of Chief Police Officers and a final decision is imminent.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, from the evidence so far we are likely to support any chief officer who decides to introduce the baton. Exercising his special responsibilities as police authority for the Metropolitan police, my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to proposals by the Commissioner to introduce two types of 22 in baton and other new batons will join the list if we are satisfied that they properly meet the undoubted need.
Body armour is also necessary in some circumstances. Many of us would have thought that it was not beyond modern technology to produce body armour that provides effective protection against knife and gun attacks and is comfortable to wear all day. However, the Home Office police scientific development branch and ACPO do not consider that there is yet such a product.
Body armour is issued for firearms incidents and stab-resistant and dual-purpose vests are increasingly purchased by forces. Chief officers will, of course, do everything they can and I commend the vest trials which are taking place in the Metropolitan police. Such trials are needed if we are to find the right product.
The Home Office is, with ACPO, considering whether pepper spray is the good thing that, by many reports, it seems to be held to be in America. Curiously, it has not been subjected to the vigorous health checks that one would expect in the United States and we must be concerned about evidence that it may be carcinogenic. I

have a particular concern for officers who would be deploying it, for the simple reason that they are the most likely to experience frequent exposure.
We agree with ACPO that the issue must be resolved as speedily as possible before we can make further progress. We have been advised by the Department of Health that we should be able to get a clearer answer within months, given the right scientific research. We have, of course, asked for the necessary work to be put in hand. It is, I am sure, an essential step in reaching a position where decisions can safely be made about whether and if so in what circumstance pepper spray should be used.
A few moments ago, I referred to the number of assaults in the Metropolitan police area. I thought that I said something over 3,000. I am advised by an alert observer that I may have said over 300. If I did, I correct myself here and now. The figure I had clearly in mind and in front of me was over 3,000 and I apologise if I said the wrong figure.
I hope that, by putting the recent justifiable changes to the way in which armed officers carry their sidearms into the wider context of the measures being taken to offer the police better protection, I have shown the House that, far from representing a fundamental shift in policing, they are a measured response to changing circumstances. We must remain flexible and imaginative in our response to the shifting changes which confront police officers as they go about their duties; that is our intent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.